Can science support creationism?

The point of your post 8 seems to be that your personal intuitions should be given greater weight than the evidence.However science is known to produce results that are strongly counter-intuitive. Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are two famous cases - and even probability theory manages to produce counter-intuitive results in quite simple cases (e.g. the "Gamblers Fallacy" anf the "Monty Hall Problem").Science has succeeded because it has not taken your approach. Instead it has gone and looked even deeper at the evidence - and it continues to do so. At the least you should respect the knowledge and the work of the many scientsts who have investigated evolution over the last 150 years and not rule out their conclusions on the basis of mere intuitions.Let me further point out that a belief does not become science if it simply happens to be true. The scientific status of a beleif is not directly related to it's truth at all - even a false beleif could be science if the evidence seems to support it strongly enough. And if the supernatural is not amenable to the scientific method then a belief in the supernatural will never be science even if it is true.On efinal point, it is a philosphical error to insist that the complexity of our brains requires an intelligent designer. Such an argument leads us to one of three conclusions all of which are unsatisfactory - an infinite regress, self-contradiction or begging the real question. Surely it is better to accept the possibility that the brain could come about by other means rather than rulking it out on such a weak argument.

Well you could easily SAY things that aren't true. But the fact is that I have gone ointo your "evidence" and found it wanting. What is more your own repeated retreat from discussions of the "evidence" - instead of backing up one of your basic assertions - shows that you know that you do not have a case.Now to deal with your points1) I never remotely suggested that counter-intuitive ideas should be given a free pass. Nor have I taken such a position.2) Your claim of brainwashing is just another example of your hatred of the truth. You cannot answer my point that science has progressed by NOT rejecting ideas just because they are counter-intuitive.3) Again, why not show some respect for the hard work and knowledge of scientists ? Even if you disagree you mus accept that they HAVE done a lot of work and they do know an awful lot more than you on the subject.4) So long as the supernatural has not been shown to exist scientifically then there is no basis for taking it into account in science. Science cannot deal with every logical possible "might-be". When supernatural effects have been scientiifcally demonstrated then THOSE effects can be taken into account.Onto the final point, your argument was that ordered complexity must have an intelligent cause.
However an intelligent cause must also be an instance of ordered complexity. How then do we explain the existence of that?
Our options are:1) To insist on an intelligent cause again - and an intellignet cause for that intelligent cause and so on. An infinite regress.2) To say that THAT instance of ordered complexity came about in some other way - contradicting the argument which states that that is impossible.3) To say that there is no explanation - thus begging the question of how organised complexity originates.None of these is a good answer.

As the name suggests the second law of thermodynamics was originally developed to deal with the movement of heat. Specifically the application to steam engines. Originally it showed that there was a finite amount of useful work that could be extracted from a heat reservoir. The second law has been generalised since then but it still deals with the fact that extracting useful work from stored energy converts that energy into a less usable form.A good popular description of the second law is at:
http://www.secondlaw.com/Now what does this have to do with complexity ?Noreover I suggest that you bear in mind that if you assert that the creation of a human brain is thermodynamically possible then you are - by implication - asserting that the creation of each individual human is a literal miracle. So far as scientific investigation has shown the brain grows by ordinary biological porcesses - which do not go against the second law.

That is not true, I have answered forthrightly.And you had only to go to the second page of the site I referred to to find a definition: And it is using and channeling that tendency that allows us to utilise energy to do work - which goes back to the original usage in theoretically modelling steam engines.Now are you going to tell me whether you believe that each individual human brain is miraculously created or not ? And if you accept that individual human brains can be formed by natural processes on what basis can you claim that any violation of the 2LoT is involved ?This message has been edited by PaulK, 11-04-2004 11:32 AM

quote:

---

Assuming you consider that scientific law to be operative in the universe, would that tendency, (I say tendency), be more likely to flow
towards order or to disorder in the universe?

---

That depends on how you define "order". Ultimately the tendency is towards a homogenous state - as far as energy distribution is concerned. Is that ordered ? It certainly doesn't sound disordered to me, by the common meaning of the term.

quote:

---

allows us to utilize. Yes, you're making my point here in this phrase. That's what I'm trying to say......by intelligent design. Without us, beings of intelligence, alas, no steam engines.

---

Then you're making a BIG mistake. The 2nd law says nothing about intelligence. You can't infer intelligent intervention just from the 2nd law. Because the 2nd law is not about intelligence - it is about the limits of what can and cannot be done - with or without intelligence.

quote:

---

No, of course not. All I meant by that statement was that whatever/whoever produced it, put within it the ability to effect the procreation, so to speak, of billions of the same. I'm sure we would both agree that that in itself would take some complex doing.

---

I would say that you underestimate the power of iteration. Both from the point of view of the developmental processes that directly produce a human brain and from the perspective of billions of years of evolution. Even a mere 1,000 years is more than ten times an average human lifetime - even for those who die of old age. Just as with QM and Relativity we are dealing with a scale completely beyond the normal human scale where our intuitions can be (more or less)trusted.

quote:

---

No, of course not. All I meant by that statement was that whatever/whoever produced it, put within it the ability to effect the procreation, so to speak, of billions of the same. I'm sure we would both agree that that in itself would take some complex doing.

---

But as I've pointed out individual brains are the product of the developmental processes, which you have agreed do NOT contradict the 2LoT. Nor have you produced any argument that even that is counter to the general tendency of energy to spread out. So really you've not demonstrated any "scientific credence" for your assertion. Just the opposite - you've shown that you don't even have a real basis for yor intuitive ideas. You haven't really considered what aspects should be directly attributed to NS, let alone the thermodynamic aspects.To start considering NS, bear in mind that NS is a selective process which channels the variations produced by mutation to allow incremental improvements in "fitness" (i.e. "ability to survive in the current environment"). How does that relate to thermodynamics ? Well if intuition is permitted I'd say that there is no significant connection at all. Want to show otherwise ?This message has been edited by PaulK, 11-05-2004 02:19 AMThis message has been edited by PaulK, 11-05-2004 05:41 AM

quote:

---

But the way I see it, is that even though scientists try to use science to disprove God, it does just the opposite.

---

You may see it that way, but for your opinion to be worth anything you would have to actually know the relevant science.

quote:

---

For example, the big bang theory. It says that life just came to be over time..

---

No, it does not. It says absolutely nothing about the origin of life.

quote:

---

..but if that was true, then the first strand of DNA would have had to create itself, meaning that information would have had to create itself...and if that is true, then there should be millions of examples of information creating itself. If you can give me one, that would be great. That's how I see it...

---

Again you're wrong. There is no requirement for DNA to "create itself". Indeed the current view of many scientists working on the origin of life is that DNA evolved in RNA-based life.As for the question of information creatign itself you don't offer any suggestion of what you consider to be "information" but it seems that pretty much any chemical reaction that produced a product that was somehow more complex would do. If that's the case then there is absolutely no problem - it happens all the time.

Message 8 represents a statement of opinion. Technically the only way ti could be false is if you did not really believe it. As to whether your opinion is correct - well we're still waiting for you to offer any real support for it. So far we've seen no sign of a solid basis at all. Message 13 claims that the 2LoT is somehow relevant - and we're still waiting for a real explanation of THAT.IF you want a clear falsehood the implication that your opinion is based on thought. logic and common sense is one. Obviously you haven't thought about the issue, applied logic to it or even had the common sense to realise that uninformed guesses are hardly a reliable way of forming opinions.On the other hand I note that my Message 38 has not been answered at all.Let me point out that there is a difference between taking a gracious exit, admitting that your opinions lack a real scientific foundation, and simply stopping posting to the thread. The former is open to you and you would be more likely praised than criticised for taking it.Of course you apparently feel that that option is not open to you. When your opinions are shown to be indefensible the only alternative to running away that YOU can accept is hurling false accusations at your opponents:

quote:

---

. Had YOU PEOPLE, not OBFUSCATED in response to my posts 8 and 13, YOU'D have made to the point responses and moved on YOURSELVES, leaving me free to either leave the thread or address other on topic stuff in the thread.
THE ACCUSITIVE FINGER YOU ARE POINTING AT ME LEAVES THREE FINGERS POINTING RIGHT BACK AT YOURSELF.

---

So long as you use low tactics like this instead of honest debate you have no grounds for complaint when your behaviour is criticised. How can you possibly justify making groundless attacks on your opponents while refusing to accept truthful criticisms of your own behaviour ?