An educational angle we all could live with? (Philosophy of Science)

Here is why a philosopher could be interested in ID.
EvC Forum: GP Gladyshev's paper (s)or mine?

quote:

---

In conclusion, I want to say a few words about the connection of my theory with problems of the Universe (Creation).
One of the definite general conclusions of my theory is, I now believe, as follows.
I managed to prove on a rigorous scientific foundation that, according to the predictions of Galileo, Maxwell, Darwin and other classics of the physical sciences, the known universal laws of nature operate at all level of organization of organic and inorganic matter. I am convinced that these laws predetermine the natural origin and development of living beings in many parts of the Universe. In accordance with the philosophy of the founders of the natural sciences, life (the different forms of its manifestation) is an inalienable component of the evolution of matter.
It follows from the above that the thermodynamic theory leaves no room for creationism, unless, of course, it is only the creation of living beings that is associated with this notion (this sometimes happens). This does not mean, however, that science is omnipotent and that it leaves no reasonable niche to spirituality — faith and religion, which cannot be scientifically substantiated. If the term creationism designates the religious doctrine of the divine creation of the initial, once arisen World, the dispute between such religious creationism and science can hardly be settled. In any case, for people, including educated persons, there is no definite (concrete) answer to the question How did the World originate and why do these universal laws of nature, introduced from the outside and known to us, exist? Such questions are also unlikely to be answered in any definite way!

---

In writing down the history/development of the ‘Gladyshev law’ Dr. Gladyshev concludes that given two conditions he narrates regardless of religion/spirituality that is never going to be scientifically substantiated the new use of Gibbs’ specific thought to phenomenological thermodyanmcs lead to a notion of the creation of living beings that is associated with known universal laws that operate at all levels of organization, organic and inorganic in which some creationism admittedly could exist thereat.The two conditions on which this synthesis of creation and evolution (asked historically by the difference of Darwin and Lamark in this reading/writing) are

quote:

---

First, one wanted to try and comprehend the process of the origin and formation of structural hierarchies within the framework of approximate quasi-equilibrium models (condition 1). Second, and this appeared difficult, there was need to find a way (providing it existed) to identify quasi-closed systems — subsystems in open living systems (condition 2).
These two conditions had to be met to make a full use, even with a certain approximation, of the methods of equilibrium thermodynamics — its variation principles.

---

Frolich’s book enables one to reconstruct dielectrics from the molecular properties of the macro substance composing the strucuture. If it is possible to show that the plant cell torus IS a dielectric, then specific sets of times would be suggestable in which the g-law operates in ontogeny and (phylogeny )such that the architect of such, would; have means to design extensions of the first condition given further evolution of the intelligence if the creationism IS still not out of culture with the any spirit in the participants. Of course the work could be done by evolutionists that incidentally could STILL support a clinamatic reality of creation motived thought.If the whole world of philosophers is waiting for one man, me, to produce this, that is their mistake. This is a clear possibility to ameliorate differences of creationism and ID and at the same time not diss evolutionary progress. Biologists could welcome work by philosophers as it has been found by some that attempts to do philosophy of biology for the benefit of biology has not really helped out biology much. Gould has a little bit of a different take on this concept. What is blocking this seems to be reliance on prior conceptions about separating epistemology and ontology (as in Salthe’s Evolving Hierarchical Systems) before delineations of quasi-closed processed boundaries are agreed to with the general move to hierarchicalize evolutionary thought. Philosophers at least could correct that mistake and so open up the discipline of physical teleology moderated by different approaches to how these former contingencies are not longer such but rather incident on the more enveloped structure of evolutionary theory and a mediated difference of creationism and ID. This broad perspective if surving eliminates many rabbit trails of the creation/evolution discussion.

If you read Gould closely you can find him say rather "within" (not 'without'). Irrelevant to what?

Ok I know the response is amess below but yous all are moving on without learning what I said in the pastYou had said previously

quote:

---

philosophy has nothing to do with biology or theology

---

and you followed that up with a much more detailed explanation of the same that I was able to follow the logic of.

Gould just didnt see it this way. VERY IMPORANT PAGE from The Structure of Evolutionary Theory Harvard 200TwoI can see that ID if not at odds with creationism generally (what to do about the aposteriori nature of the probability spaces) that it provides a LARGER frame from which intellectual explorations of hierachicalizations can be platformed. However if you or someone else thinks like the main man in Jersey Girl who says that "dad" said there are only two ways of thinking (New York and New Jersey) then you might retain your logic indeed and develop a workable philosophy associated with the method that need not see to possible extensions to the branching (which is really a condensation intuitvely) whether motived by creationism or some firinge science based on computer geekeyness say. This way of thinking IS deeply ingrained in some people. As a teenager who quickly learned how to seperate nearly a 100 local species in my brain, I rather cagely asked my father (who was in public relations) , "how many ways is it possible to think?" He defintely and definitvely answered, "two" and exclusively two. I ASKED him AGAIN how if he couldnt think in MORE ways and he said NO again that he could only think in the two AFORSAID SINGLE division. I of course was thinking in more ways but it was indeterminate and hard to pin point. It is this uncertainty in the enumeration of the ways that makes hierarchialization a mental possiblity and a frustatingly difficult thing to psyche one self into. The reason I stress the USE of creationist thought patterns is because they are Outside this framework and offer at least to my mind a diversity from which I can often times associate larger groupings mentally. Yes the discipline ID it self is rather sparce but I am evaluating the effect it has in mind. Gould thought in twos and that is how he probably came to the magestria. He certainly was a little too dichtomous when it came to his ideas on systematics in the fox, and magister's pox book. Only bring Gould into it because he was already on the scene and unlike Dakwins who will survive or die of his own volition Gould HAS actually changed the way some people think about evolution and I HAVE to deal with that regardless of my interest like his of hierarchicalizing biological praxis. I would have had not much to comment about your logic except that no one seems to have taken up Woodger much on his axioms of biology. Why is it that there is not Hilbert program for biology? Is that not the philosophers fault and not the scientists??You dont need to answer this question.If one starts to foucs on the difference betweent he origin of genetic information and biochemistry which is the hub of the difference of opinioin be tween ID and creationism this is a level of organization where it becomes difficult to understand the individuality of it all. One can be very quickly uncertain as to whether the less individuality is simply a goal of biophyisical superposition, a different view on premature deaths as analyzes by wallece in a POPULATION that is made up of ‘populations of microstates , or something again indeed more radically different one might be tempted to associatwith the natme albert einistein.So the problem in the wording of Kitcher, in my words is, IS the energy individuated enough that given a guess at the information we can extract it from a creatures form.

quote:

---

Creationists are very vauge about exactly where evolutionary theor contradicts the second law

---

quote:

---

Let us be completely clear about the logic of the situtation

---

quote:

---

They do not point to some particular feature of Darwinian histories and show that that feature presupposes a system that thermodynamics disallows

---

quote:

---

Evolutionary theory would contradict the second law if (and only if) the construction of Darwinian histories required us to suppose the existence of thermodynamically clsoed systems in which entropy does not increase

---

quote:

---

However, it may help to dissolve any lingering worries if we look at life on earth from the perspective of classical thermodynamics. Since the earth receives large amounts of energy from the sun, we cannot think of the earth as a closed system...Classical thermodynmaics tells us that, within this vast closed system, entropy increases. It says abosolutely nothing about entropy variation at the the locla level.

---

Increasingly the only way I find that it is even possible to write a possible solution is if the mere analogy of Fisher’s fundamental theorem and phenomenological thermodynamics be given a new face. Prima facie this seems unlikely to spot out the whole field but it is the only epistemelogical way I can fathom to proceed with it all. I have always found that people dealing with the the whole thing are never proposing resolutions as broad. I am waiting for the day when the increased communication given to human kind by the internet surpasses my vision but this has not happened today. Part of the solution is that micro and macro states often carry the same symbols.So we have entropy variation a the local level being often cashed in without proper support for variation at the individual level and no means is provided in the literature to turn the corner of Wallace’s volumized rectangle. Biologists seeking truth claims are not going to answer this. I had hoped that theoretical biology was going to but if people just think like Simon Levin and Ian Steawart it wont either. Simon told me that my approach of using incidence geometry to mediate the motion on Wallace’s line was too philosophical and so even thought I think ICR types are in the more rightful place on creation and biology I try to find the intellectual whereas that could entrust IDists with this job that goes undone. I don’t have a sense of their community to know if that is the fools errand but given now the third year of Wolfram’s new kind of science it seems that given that that is not a mere blip there can be some work for ID apart from my own interest in a job well done. And on a personal note I do think that it has been the influx and influence of philosophers that had caused me to not get on with biology at Cornell. I have always been more dedicated to truth claims than this speculative posting attitude on evc but I cant understand apart from these cultural differences why it was that my interest in truth prevented others from helping me when the society refused to support the job order form. I need an answer about any changes made to "probability spaces" without that, the writing indeed appears equivocal. That is the fault of experinence not understanding.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-18-2005 03:06 PM
The Kitcher quotes are from "Abusing Science" out of MIT1982-96This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-18-2005 03:24 PMThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-18-2005 03:25 PM

To think that ID's designer cannot use chemicals is only to recall that the intellgence forms the organ completely by academics of archetypical pasts. IF the circle however is the only form used in the blue-print one need not remand this false perspective on Paley's watch, that is the goal but not the means to the creation of such chemically.If indeed the difference of transverse and vertical lenticels is visually as said "watch" then tools will be built.Chemistry WAS NOT being taught to me a Cornell in such a way that one could even "imagine" such combinations of circularities but chemistry with temporality inherent does.see also SUPRAMOLECULAR CHEMISTRY/SCIENCE Some CONJECTURES and PERSPECTIVES by J.-M. Lehn in "Supramolecular Science: Where It Is and Where It Is Going," pp287-304 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the the Netherlands.I am suggesting that adapation of plants to
EvC Forum: The Philosophical implications of Darwinism/ID
1/2a cellulose is given by temporal chemistry of electric field inversions (say on the cycle of once a week and a half) and that 1/2c cellulose is given by daily changes in the opening and closing by gaurds of stomata and that these chemical pathways in time are minimized by Gladyshev's law such that the dielectric volume of as, cs, and 1/2 both can be phrased under the imaginary symbols of Maxwell electrotonics with respect to plant demes.

quote:

---

Summary of the Theory of the Electro-Tonic State.

​

We may conceive of the electro-tonic state at any point of space as a quantity determinate in magnitude and direction, and we may represent the electrotonic condition of a portion of space by any mechanical system which has at every point some quantity, which may be a velocity, a displacement, or a force, whose direction and magnitude correspond to those of the supposed electro-tonic state.

​

This representation involves no physical theory, it is only a kind of artifical notation. In analytical investigations we make use of the three components of the electro-tonic state, and call them electro-tonic functions.

---

by JCMaxwell "On Faraday's Lines of Force"I,BSM will develop(if ontogeny presents any temporal information or if the atmosphere provides the clock only) phenomenological thermodynamics such that these functions are the specific parameters of the Gladyshev thermostat. This remands a (bio)physical theory where monohierarchies intersect the source and sinks of the electrotonic state itself on condition that supramolecualr self-assembly of cellulose dielectircs builds the ruputre of lenticels from under prior embryogenic stomata.The theory thus coordinates weekly(storm front e-filed inversions concommittant with increased ground water) and daily cycles(of stoma opening for photosynthesis) of differences in three quatifications to a single Gibbs minimization of cellulose packing
during dipole fixation under a kinematic of an "external" applied e-field uniquely suseptible to selection artifical or otherwise.I havent progressed to the point of the tool shop. These are NOT contradictory viewpoints. ID if/when it is working expands man's opportunities. It does not restrict the discussion to national preferneces in the history of biology & to call such writing as mine "philosophical" and not scientific really strains even the elasticity on my brief.

I have not looked at all of your recent posts.When you say "ID is not science" you only mean the present "intelligent" representation of ID, as it might be currently given to students, right?This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-23-2005 08:52 AM

Ok. I just wanted to make sure you werent against any future change that might make it possible to present a curriculum. Thanks.