|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Death of Darwinism
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
And how absolutely priceless to find documentary evidence that Intelligent Design was (and I think the past participle begins to be justified) Creationism v2.0.
In my campaign to reclaim the words "creation" and "creationism", can I request a rephrase to "Intelligent Design was Special Creationism v2.0."?
Though, that 2.0 doesn't really account for other versions of Special Creationism other than the YEC version - we also have "Gap Theory Creationism", "Day-Age Creationism", and "Progressive Creationism" at least.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kepler's Puppet
Shipmate
# 4011
|
Posted
Yet another inconsitancy with all of those evil compromise positions, proving that the only real choice is between godless and purposeless evolution from nothing or meaningful creation exactly as laid out in the Bible.
Er... right. I'll add that to the YECcie bin of "overwhelming evidence" and continue being underwhelmed ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif) .
[Forgot to mention that I share your view, Alan. We need to get our word back!]
[ 05. October 2006, 17:40: Message edited by: Kepler's Puppet ]
--------------------
Most Likely Lurking
Posts: 1447 | From: Dixie Land | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
It's over two years since I posted on this board. It's interesting as I've changes my views slightly in that time. But then I like to think I'm always open to discussion and debate.
Anyway I do agree with Alan that Creationism is a word that needs reclaiming. In a very good episode of the West Wing (the best TV show ever) presidential candidate Matthew Santos is asked if he believes in Intelligent Design. He replies "I believe in God and I'd like to think that he's intelligent"
The existance and nature of the creator is far more important than How.
I presume and I'm fairly confident about this that Alan, Kepler's Puppet and even Karl believe in a creator...
AFZ
P.S. I'm still relatively agnostic about this issue. The ID brigade have an absolute right to ask the question: What about this thing: can it be explained by a stepwise mechanism? Of course if they are intellecually honest then when someone explains such a mechanism they can't jump up and down and cry. Neo-darwinism as a theory depends absolutely on a stepwise mechanism. Of course Young-earth creationism depends on a particular Intepretation of Genesis.
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
Creationism is one thing, creation science quite another. From a scientific point of view, all sorts of creationism are the same, from Last Thursdayism to the one where God hangs around tweaking each instance of radioactive decay or the one where he lit the blue touchpaper on the Big Bang and retired to a safe distance. I don't think you can be a Christian without believing God created everything, and thus a creationist.
Creation science and ID say that science can demonstrate creation, but fail to show how - and those who doubt that should read the Kitzmiller court transcripts and Judge Jones' verdict. There really is nothing there; no experiments, no theory, no science of any kind.
That to me seems a far harder thing to believe, and I have a particular problem with those who want to teach ID in schools alongside evolutionary biology. That's the sort of thing that makes creationism a dirty word.
R
--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.
Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
(I'd normally only quote the bit of a post I'm responding to. But, as this is from another thread I think the full quote maybe useful to give some context) quote:
Originally posted by Ed Form in Kerygmania:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Ed Form:
my expressions of distaste for such things are only a convenient shorthand for my carefully-researched and thought-through opinion that there is no evidence against the literal reading of Genesis 1-11. I used the shorthand to avoid getting into the inevitably prolonged and arid discussion of the merits of so-called scientific explanations of our surroundings.
May I humbly suggest that your "carefully-researched and thought-through opinion" is not quite as well researched as you seem to believe?
You can suggest it by all means, but it isn't true.
quote:
I'd suggest that there appear to be two large gaps in your research. One would be filled by getting hold of some decent introductory texts for geology and biology; you seem smart enough that something aimed at first year undergraduate students in these subjects wouldn't be beyond you, otherwise there are some excellent popular science books around that are a bit more readable.
Alan, I'm a scientist with a substantial education, although there was no reason for you to know that as it isn't mentioned in my profile. I disagree with the majority position on the origins of the universe and this planet after having researched the matter in some depth over quite a long time. In my opinion there is no reason to suppose that the information recorded in the early chapters of Genesis is not factual.
quote:
The second gap is an apparent lack of reading in theology - maybe start with what Augustine wrote about Genesis, and Calvins commentary wouldn't hurt either.
C'mon Alan, I was reading theology before you entered school. Your choice of possible corrective literature intrigues me though. As Augustine was the leading innovator in the introduction of the ludicrous 'original sin' idea, the major moving force in the adulteration of the Christian way with Greek philosophy, and the first writer I know who advocated war as a legitimate tool of a Christian society, I cannot accept that reading him again would improve my ability to grasp what Scripture says. Calvin, on the other hand, was a political murderer of the most horrifying kind and about as theologically useful as a doorknob with sharp edges.
quote:
From the theologians you'll see that there are ample reasons to prefer a non-literal reading of the opening chapters of Genesis. From the science text books you'll see lots of compelling evidence that the Earth is much older, and has a much richer history, than a literal reading of Genesis would allow.
I find nothing in the theologians to support either discarding Genesis or squeezing it into any of the many proposed corsets that we are assured can improve its shape. In science text books I find only a bunch of parrots repeating ideas that don't stand up under scrutiny.
Ed Form
At the moment, I'll only respond to one part of this. I believe the rest has been dealt with adequately elsewhere on this thread.
quote:
Your choice of possible corrective literature intrigues me though
Well, they were just examples. The sort of thing I was think of were things like these quotes from Augustine quote:
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation
The Literal Interpretation of Genesis
or
quote:
We see that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting [of the sun] and no morning but by the rising of the sun, but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness and called the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was and yet must unhesitatingly believe it
The City of God
I could have referenced several other early Church theologians; eg: Clement of Alexandria or Origen. I referenced Calvin to highlight the fact that such views were not exclusive to the Church Fathers, they were held by the Reformers (and, many others since then) too.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
A teacher from Liverpool is urging the DfES to incorporate creationist materials into science lessons. Reports here from BBC News and here from the Grauniad. The suggested creationist material is from the somewhat inaccurately-named Truth in Science, and they claim it is "useful for debating Darwinist theories".
This looks like a fairly bog-standard creationist gambit - challenging a sacred cow, pointing out gaps in Darwinian theory, all the usual rhetoric. Of course, there's no attempt to explain why the challenge to the existing theory should take the form of creationist dogma, but I wouldn't expect anything else.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
quote:
Now, from a thermodynamic point of view, there is nothing that prevents things from becoming more complex, assuming that those things are in an energy-rich environment. But the theoretical advance in science that truly resonated with people was evolution. Suddenly, people really "got" the idea that complexity could arise naturally.
This is not a blow to Christianity. But it is devastating for teleology.
I'm no Creation Science advocate, but this argument loses me a bit. Isn't it the case that even though we know that complexity can arise, it is still an instrincially improbable event.
I just want to respond to anteater from the Purgatory thread, because this expresses a common set of confusions. The first confusion involves the idea of "improbable." If we say that the equilibrium state of chemical species A and B in a given environment is such that 99% of the mixture will be the lower-energy A and 1% will be the higher-energy B, we might say that B is less "probable" than A. In that sense, yes, many hihger-energy compounds are less probable in a given environment than the lower-energy compounds. But, of course, both will be present in the mixture.
The second sense of "improbable" is what the creationists want you to think when the first sense is appropriate, though. In that sense, a given compound that is more sophisticated -- for reasons that are simply assumed by the creation scientists -- would not arise at all under natural circumstances. There's actually been a fair amount of research into the chemistry of "primordial soups." This is an attempt to determine what arises from what starting environments. In general, this research is not done to "debunk God." Rather, the motivation is to better understand the chemical environment of early earth. The assumption is that we arose naturally, and the attempt is to "reverse engineer" our origins.
It turns out that plausible initial conditions for our planet lead to basic building blocks of life. Given that these results are reproducible in the lab, it is hard to make the case that they are "improbable" in the sense that the creation scientists would like them to be. The research here is a long way from producing life in the lab. But it is certainly not the sort of thing that should lend comfort to those who would build their faith on the idea that the world was -- and could only be -- created in six days by a divine being.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
"Intelligent design looks at empirical evidence in the natural world and says, 'this is evidence for a designer'. If you go any further the argument does become religious and intelligent design does have religious implications," added Dr Buggs.
Ha! Right. A designer doesn't itself have religious implications.
Just how stupid does Dr Buggs think we are?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ha! Right. A designer doesn't itself have religious implications.
Yes, that was a fairly baffling argument.
While I was reading the Grauniad article, I noticed a link to a report on the world's first Creationist Museum, which is costing $25m to build. It's fairly unexceptional as creationist apologetics go, but there are some very strange passages in the article, like the designer talking about the difficulty of portraying Adam pre-Fall:
quote:
"He is appropriately positioned, so he can be modest. There will be a lamb or something there next to him. We are very careful about that: some of our donors are scared to death about nudity."
Erm, yes.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
I've heard what I think is a version of this argument a few times from Christians who have trouble accepting evolution. It usually goes something like, "lifeforms/the universe are so complex and so finely tuned they can't be explained by an undirected process".
My problem is, isn't this always what happens with probability when you start at the end point of a long, complicated process and work backwards? To me it's a bit like saying 'why did I make it rather than any of the other x-billion sperm?' It may be awe-unspiring to consider, but the improbability of me sitting here doesn't make the explanation of how I got here wrong.
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
"Intelligent design looks at empirical evidence in the natural world and says, 'this is evidence for a designer'. If you go any further the argument does become religious and intelligent design does have religious implications," added Dr Buggs.
Ha! Right. A designer doesn't itself have religious implications.
Just how stupid does Dr Buggs think we are?
Well, I guess that if it were discovered that the world was designed by a physical force acting within the Universe - as a pet fish might discover an aquarium factory, if that makes any sense - then said Designer would indeed by a scientifically accepted entity rather than a religious one. The religion comes in when you start hoping that such an entity is acceptable to science whilst not accepting overwhelming scientific evidence against it.
Arguments from design can be perfectly acceptable as scientific hypotheses - they just happen to be wrong.
Of course, if such an entity were discovered, it couldn't possibly be the immanent Christian deity, and would go rather further towards disproving most of the world's religions than Darwin does. Which is a 'religious implication' I guess.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
...But it is certainly not the sort of thing that should lend comfort to those who would build their faith on the idea that the world was -- and could only be -- created in six days by a divine being.
--Tom Clune
I don't know anyone whose faith is built on 6-24-hour-day creation, yet I know a great many creationists. All the creationists I know build their faith on Jesus.
Perhaps I just know the wrong sort of creationists.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I don't know anyone whose faith is built on 6-24-hour-day creation, yet I know a great many creationists. All the creationists I know build their faith on Jesus.
Perhaps I just know the wrong sort of creationists.
If we manage to make artificial intelligence, and it grows exponentially, it would soon be able to create mini-AIs within itself. It could create virtual worlds within itself in which these mini-AIs could live out their little lives. The mini-AIs would have no way of knowing that their world existed only in the mind of super-AI. What's more, if super-AI told them the truth, they'd laugh, pointing to the age of rocks etc as evidence. (As if super-AI couldn't make rocks that looked old.)
Super-AI could create a very large number of mini-AIs and a very large number of virtual worlds, all to a large degree of complexity.
Since the Primary Universe would be an unlikely event, it's unlikely we exist in it. On the other hand, a secondary virtual world would be a highly probable event (given a super-AI). Therefore, we probably exist in one.
Wouldn't it be ironic if the 6-dayers turned out to be right after all, and that all our grand empiricism has misled us. To create the world, God simply imagines it. When God stops 'running the program', the world ends. Forget about Big Crunches. The sky will roll back like a scroll. A really neat special effect.
--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."
Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Ah. The Matrix Universe, run by God the Great Deceiver.
I'll pass.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ah. The Matrix Universe, run by God the Great Deceiver.
I'll pass.
How would it be a deception? God told us he made the universe, not all that long ago. We simply don't believe him.
God didn't say he made the world to look brand new, but he made it to look good. God may be more interested in aesthetics than in geology. How would I know?
In the same way, we won't believe the end of the world has come because it won't be a red giant or a comet or whatever, but Christ returning on the clouds in glory with his holy angels. We'll look up and say "Impossible! Deception! etc."
If the universe doesn't do tomorrow what it did yesterday, God must therefore be deceptive? No.
God must smile. I hope he smiles. All us little people confidently declaring what he can and cannot do.
--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."
Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ah. The Matrix Universe, run by God the Great Deceiver.
I'll pass.
How would it be a deception? God told us he made the universe, not all that long ago. We simply don't believe him.
He told us in the very stuff of the universe itself that He made it a very long time ago. To make a universe that is young but appears in every way to be old - as it does - is deceptive.
quote:
God didn't say he made the world to look brand new, but he made it to look good. God may be more interested in aesthetics than in geology. How would I know?
If He's that uninterested in Geology, why make it look so consistently not only old, but the same age. I can take a lump of granite and subject it to umpteen tests. They will all, with a small error margin, give me the same age. That doesn't sound like God was uninterested in Geology; indeed, it makes it look like He was very careful to make it look old - if it wasn't, that's deception, just like taking a new piece of silver and "aging" it to pass it off as Queen Anne.
quote:
In the same way, we won't believe the end of the world has come because it won't be a red giant or a comet or whatever, but Christ returning on the clouds in glory with his holy angels. We'll look up and say "Impossible! Deception! etc."
How does that follow from what went before? It doesn't.
quote:
If the universe doesn't do tomorrow what it did yesterday, God must therefore be deceptive? No.
Nope. Didn't say that anywhere.
quote:
God must smile. I hope he smiles. All us little people confidently declaring what he can and cannot do.
Nope. Haven't pronounced on that either. So quit the dishonest strawman.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
He told us in the very stuff of the universe itself that He made it a very long time ago. To make a universe that is young but appears in every way to be old - as it does - is deceptive.
Now that's an interesting point. Suppose for a moment that Jesus did turn water into wine. Would that have been deceptive? What would a wine expert have concluded on analysing that wine? He might have estimated its age, the type of grape used and so on, and he'd have been absolutely wrong in his analysis. But if Jesus freely admitted that he made the wine by miracle, and still the wine expert refused to believe, whose fault is that?
"Ah," says the expert. "The very stuff of the wine tells me it's old etc."
The mistake the expert makes is in thinking God can't make mature wine from water. Zap. In the same way, the cosmologist and the liberal theologian don't believe God can make a mature universe from nothing whatsoever. Zap.
In terms of the super-AI referred to earlier, how hard would it be to change water into wine in one of its virtual worlds? Absolutely effortless.
quote:
How does that follow from what went before? It doesn't.
We examine the present, we discern 'laws' and recurrent causal chains, and extrapolate into the past. Any break in that causal chain, you could call 'deceptive'. It's easier for all concerned for the past to unroll smoothly, with no miraculous discontinuities. But does it?
In the same way, we extrapolate causal chains into the future, speaking confidently of the sun turning into a red giant in four billion years and so on. We'll be most irate when God breaks those causal chains also, and ends the world.
Zap. No warning. Maybe tomorrow. All this will cease to exist.
--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."
Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
He told us in the very stuff of the universe itself that He made it a very long time ago. To make a universe that is young but appears in every way to be old - as it does - is deceptive.
Now that's an interesting point. Suppose for a moment that Jesus did turn water into wine. Would that have been deceptive? What would a wine expert have concluded on analysing that wine? He might have estimated its age, the type of grape used and so on, and he'd have been absolutely wrong in his analysis. But if Jesus freely admitted that he made the wine by miracle, and still the wine expert refused to believe, whose fault is that?
"Ah," says the expert. "The very stuff of the wine tells me it's old etc."
I've seen this one before. It doesn't wash. The thing is that wine appears aged because we know that normal processes take X amount of time to produce a particular blend of chemicals in the wine. However, with the universe, we have more than simple maturity. We have a history. We have a rock face which shows igneous intrusions, fossils of animals with evidence of diseases on them, fossil burrows - evidence of real events which, if the age is only apparent, never happened. An entire fictional history. Now, if Jesus had provided a certificate of provenance with the wine, put it into bottles marked Chateau Damascus, 300BC and miraculously covered the bottles with cobwebs, yep, that'd be deceptive.
quote:
The mistake the expert makes is in thinking God can't make mature wine from water. Zap. In the same way, the cosmologist and the liberal theologian don't believe God can make a mature universe from nothing whatsoever. Zap.
Wrong on two points. Firstly, the vast majority of theologians, liberal or conservative, are not young earthers - it's generally considered to be an extremist position. Secondly, we don't think He can't, we think He didn't. And since the Bible doesn't say "and God created the earth, but made it look like natural processes had done it over millions of years, even though they hadn't", I don't see any rational reason for doing so.
quote:
In terms of the super-AI referred to earlier, how hard would it be to change water into wine in one of its virtual worlds? Absolutely effortless.
It's not about whether God could, or how hard it would be for Him. It's about whether He did. But some creationists seem to prefer to argue as if it's about what God could do, presumably because the straw man is easier to demolish than the real thing. This is dishonest. Don't do it.
quote:
quote:
How does that follow from what went before? It doesn't.
We examine the present, we discern 'laws' and recurrent causal chains, and extrapolate into the past. Any break in that causal chain, you could call 'deceptive'.
Nope. I'd call it miracle. I call the idea God created a universe with history that never happened deceptive; I do not call miracle deception.
quote:
It's easier for all concerned for the past to unroll smoothly, with no miraculous discontinuities. But does it?
Nope. I seem to recall an event involving an empty tomb, for one thing.
quote:
In the same way, we extrapolate causal chains into the future, speaking confidently of the sun turning into a red giant in four billion years and so on. We'll be most irate when God breaks those causal chains also, and ends the world.
Zap. No warning. Maybe tomorrow. All this will cease to exist.
Maybe it will. Who knows?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
God didn't say he made the world to look brand new, but he made it to look good. God may be more interested in aesthetics than in geology. How would I know?
In that case, the faithful geologist, wishing to honour God, will continue to treat the rocks as very ancient, thereby studying what God thinks of as good.
It makes no difference to science. Its the omphalos. God could have created the world five minutes ago. Tolstoy could have started writing War and Peace at chapter 6. But we live in the world. We have to play the cards we've been dealt. When we are doing science we worship God by seeing his good creation as it is.
And it is very old. So God obviously thinks that very old is good.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Ken - you open up another reason why nurks young-but-made-to-look-old model is inadequate.
God created the earth good. This is agreed with all parties.
The earth is to all appearances, and all examination, old.
Therefore, as you say Ken, God thinks that old is good. Or He'd have created a not-old earth.
Given that God thinks an old earth is good, wouldn't it make sense for God to create it a long time ago?
Otherwise we have a rather bizarre situation where God makes the earth, then realises He's made it too late, so has to fake it to make it look older than it really is.
If God wants a world with dinosaur skeletons, igeous intrusions and fossil burrows in it (as He obviously does, because that's what we have), wouldn't the obvious course of action be to create a universe where the earth really had dinosaurs, igneous intrusions and burrowing animals in a time when what is later rock was mud? Which means it really is old.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In that case, the faithful geologist, wishing to honour God, will continue to treat the rocks as very ancient, thereby studying what God thinks of as good.
It makes no difference to science. Its the omphalos. God could have created the world five minutes ago. Tolstoy could have started writing War and Peace at chapter 6. But we live in the world. We have to play the cards we've been dealt. When we are doing science we worship God by seeing his good creation as it is.
And it is very old. So God obviously thinks that very old is good.
We don't know what is, only what seems to be.
It's perfectly reasonable to say, "This 50 million year old rock was made yesterday." From God's point of view, it could have been made yesterday. From my POV inside the story, the rock seems 50 million years old, and that's what I must work with.
Just as an author can create 'an old castle on an ancient hill' in the five minutes before breakfast, God can make an old universe.
In exactly the same way, the universe seems to be such that it will run on for billions of years. That's what we have to work with and so we plant our tree, as Luther famously said. From God's POV, however, the universe will stop any time soon.
--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."
Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
An author can create such a castle, but it is fictional; its history never occurred. If it's meant to reflect reality; if the author is meant to be writing a history book, then he's a fraud. But that aside, you are creating a model where we can't know anything. Are you familiar with the idea of Last Tuesdayism?
Last Tuesdayism says that the entire universe, including my brain and the memories it apparently contains, was created last Tuesday at 5pm by my cat, Suky. You say "Ah, it can't have been, because I remember going to church last Sunday!". But I say "When you were created last Tuesday the memory of going to Church was put in your brain by Suky. Do you doubt that Suky has the power to do this?". You can't prove that isn't the case. But doesn't it make existence futile, since never mind Last Tuesday; the universe might have been created a microsecond ago, complete and apparently having a past and a history. But wouldn't you think Suky to be somewhat deceptive, creating all these false memories?
Ultimately, you cannot know that you are not the only sentient being in the universe, actually a disembodied mind floating through space misinterpreting random stimuli as the universe you think exists.
Rather, we have to work on the provisional assumption that the universe is real, what we sense has objective reality, and if we see a supernova in a galaxy 100 million light years away, then there really was a star explode there 100 million years ago, and there really was a 100 million years ago for it to happen in.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...we have to work on the provisional assumption that the universe is real...
While I understand the point you are making, I think you give way too much in making it. When we see a car hurtling toward us, we do not "work on the provisional assumption" that we are in danger of being splattered all over the street. We have a real, unprovisional and unhypothetical appreciation of our danger.
The Greeks used to play these mind games, and take them seriously. It was endearing, but idiotic. The plain fact is that our senses trump our reason when the two are at odds, except when we have overwhelming evidence that we have been misled. The game you acknowledge gets whatever power it has from the fact that we have all been misled on occasion by our senses. Of course, we have been misled far more frequently by our reason, but that's not what the game is about.
To suggest that the world is other than it seems simply requires the person making the claim to provide a massive amount of evidence that this is the case. Saying, "If that weren't so, I would have to abandon my silly belief in scriptural literalism and actually think" does not count as such overwhelming evidence. This kind of nonsense deserves considerably less respect than your generous soul is allowing.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've seen this one before. It doesn't wash. The thing is that wine appears aged because we know that normal processes take X amount of time to produce a particular blend of chemicals in the wine. However, with the universe, we have more than simple maturity. We have a history. We have a rock face which shows igneous intrusions, fossils of animals with evidence of diseases on them, fossil burrows - evidence of real events which, if the age is only apparent, never happened. An entire fictional history. Now, if Jesus had provided a certificate of provenance with the wine, put it into bottles marked Chateau Damascus, 300BC and miraculously covered the bottles with cobwebs, yep, that'd be deceptive.
Our wine expert is thorough. He isolates the yeasts from the wine and cultures them. The flavins tells him the type of grape. He determines the age by measuring C14 in the ethanol. He looks at the ratios of oxygen isotopes and determines the temperatures at which the vines grew. And so on. From all this, he paints a detailed history of the wine. When told it was actually made by miracle yesterday afternoon, he laughs.
quote:
Wrong on two points. Firstly, the vast majority of theologians, liberal or conservative, are not young earthers - it's generally considered to be an extremist position. Secondly, we don't think He can't, we think He didn't. And since the Bible doesn't say "and God created the earth, but made it look like natural processes had done it over millions of years, even though they hadn't", I don't see any rational reason for doing so.
The extreme position would be God making a young universe that within 10000 years has grown to look 15 billion years old.
You get in the Tardis, whiz off, and meet a man called Adam in this garden. Adam's about 25. The garden's well established. Big trees. I do a quick bit of dendochronology. Some C14. Yep. At least 300 years old, these trees. This rock here (quick analysis in Tardis) is 50 million years old.
Wrong. It was all made yesterday. Bloody deceptive, I complain.
I don't see how God can work any 'physical' miracle without giving a misleading appearance of age and process.
quote:
It's not about whether God could, or how hard it would be for Him. It's about whether He did. But some creationists seem to prefer to argue as if it's about what God could do, presumably because the straw man is easier to demolish than the real thing. This is dishonest. Don't do it.
I think the OT creation stories are mythical, or at least extended 'parable', for want of a better term. Magic trees, flaming swords, giants in the land, towers reaching to heaven and so on. The text itself demands it, not science. Just so we're clear.
My present point is that not even God can make some physical thing by miracle that has no 'misleading appearance' of age and formative process. I think this is true.
quote:
quote:
It's easier for all concerned for the past to unroll smoothly, with no miraculous discontinuities. But does it?
Nope. I seem to recall an event involving an empty tomb, for one thing.
It is easier for all concerned. A discontinuous universe would be impossible for us creatures of habit to navigate. If miracles happened all over the place, we'd go mad.
quote:
Maybe it will. Who knows?
If the universe could cease to exist tomorrow, violating all scientific law and reasonable expectation, so it could have appeared yesterday.
The new heavens and the new earth, by the way. Will we have to wait 15 billion years to enjoy them, or can God create them directly? Would they then have an appearance of age?
Cheers.
--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."
Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...we have to work on the provisional assumption that the universe is real...
While I understand the point you are making, I think you give way too much in making it. When we see a car hurtling toward us, we do not "work on the provisional assumption" that we are in danger of being splattered all over the street. We have a real, unprovisional and unhypothetical appreciation of our danger.
The Greeks used to play these mind games, and take them seriously. It was endearing, but idiotic. The plain fact is that our senses trump our reason when the two are at odds, except when we have overwhelming evidence that we have been misled. The game you acknowledge gets whatever power it has from the fact that we have all been misled on occasion by our senses. Of course, we have been misled far more frequently by our reason, but that's not what the game is about.
To suggest that the world is other than it seems simply requires the person making the claim to provide a massive amount of evidence that this is the case. Saying, "If that weren't so, I would have to abandon my silly belief in scriptural literalism and actually think" does not count as such overwhelming evidence. This kind of nonsense deserves considerably less respect than your generous soul is allowing.
--Tom Clune
An artificial intelligence would grow exponentially, given time and resources. It could then model a universe to any level of resolution. It could place mini-AIs into that universe. They would have no way of knowing (unless they were told) that their world was not the Primary Reality.
Far from being a mind game that the silly Greeks played, this scenario is fast becoming a real possibility. If it's actually achieved, the probability that we ourselves exist in such a world would be almost a certainty. This is because there can be only one Primary Reality, but any number of virtual realities. Therefore, we'd probably be in one of them.
Though virtual, it would also be as real as any empiricist could hope for. It's the principle of equivalence. If a virtual world is indistinguishable from a real world in every way, it is real. It ceases to be real the moment it becomes distinguishable. Every miracle tells me that this world is not quite real. When God ends the world, zap, we will suddenly realise the world was never real at all.
In summary: Uber-AI can turn virtual worlds on and off at will, with all the appearance of age, with every rock and bug modelled to the finest resolution. For mini-AIs to accuse Uber-AI of duplicity would be just a little silly.
--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."
Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
An author can create such a castle, but it is fictional; its history never occurred. If it's meant to reflect reality; if the author is meant to be writing a history book, then he's a fraud. But that aside, you are creating a model where we can't know anything. Are you familiar with the idea of Last Tuesdayism?
The castle analogy fails because the characters in the book are not free. However, if Uber-AI writes a novel, he'll make a virtual old castle on a virtual ancient hill that are indistinguishable from the real things (and are therefore real), and his characters will be mini-AIs with real minds and real freedom. And yes, Uber-AI can do all this before breakfast.
quote:
Last Tuesdayism says that the entire universe, including my brain and the memories it apparently contains, was created last Tuesday at 5pm by my cat, Suky.
Yes, but laughing at the idea doesn't make it less true. The only way mini-AI can know he exists in a virtual world is for Uber-AI to tell him. Mini-AI will find it very hard to believe, and probably won't.
quote:
Rather, we have to work on the provisional assumption that the universe is real, what we sense has objective reality, and if we see a supernova in a galaxy 100 million light years away, then there really was a star explode there 100 million years ago, and there really was a 100 million years ago for it to happen in.
Sure. Our virtual universe is real for as long as we cannot distinguish it from the real. We have to take things at face value and work from there. However, miracles suggest to me, at least, that it's not as real as we suppose.
--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."
Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Far from being a mind game that the silly Greeks played, this scenario is fast becoming a real possibility. If it's actually achieved, the probability that we ourselves exist in such a world would be almost a certainty. This is because there can be only one Primary Reality, but any number of virtual realities. Therefore, we'd probably be in one of them.
That's just not logical. Why can't there be plenty of (what you call) primary realities? Modern physics certainly has that as one of its plausible models. And "there can be any number" of x does not imply that y=x, unless you know more about other things that y could be, and the probabilities behind 'can'.
quote:
Though virtual, it would also be as real as any empiricist could hope for. It's the principle of equivalence. If a virtual world is indistinguishable from a real world in every way, it is real. It ceases to be real the moment it becomes distinguishable. Every miracle tells me that this world is not quite real. When God ends the world, zap, we will suddenly realise the world was never real at all.
I can't speak for the reality of your world, but the one I'm in lacks any indication that it's computationally generated. There are limits to computation, you know: it can't "just grow" like magic beans, no matter how clever the AI. The maximum amount of computation possible in our observed universe is finite (and at least to some extent known), and it's not enough to simulate the entire universe unless you define the entire universe as a computer with the single task of computing itself (and if that gets you tingling, have a google for the computational universe)
If you're saying there's some huge computer outside doing all this, well perhaps. Occam says that it's not likely, and you'll have no more evidence for that than for any other Big Thing Outside Universe Makes Universe Go theory. Of which there are plenty already.
quote:
In summary: Uber-AI can turn virtual worlds on and off at will, with all the appearance of age, with every rock and bug modelled to the finest resolution. For mini-AIs to accuse Uber-AI of duplicity would be just a little silly.
Not if the outside agent had said one thing to them and did another.
I'm not sure this has much to do with the death of Darwinism, mind.
R
--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.
Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
That's just not logical. Why can't there be plenty of (what you call) primary realities? Modern physics certainly has that as one of its plausible models. And "there can be any number" of x does not imply that y=x, unless you know more about other things that y could be, and the probabilities behind 'can'.
If the cosmic froth idea is true, that would be the Primary Reality. There can only be one, absolutely rock-bottom reality, by definition.
quote:
I can't speak for the reality of your world, but the one I'm in lacks any indication that it's computationally generated. There are limits to computation, you know: it can't "just grow" like magic beans, no matter how clever the AI. The maximum amount of computation possible in our observed universe is finite (and at least to some extent known), and it's not enough to simulate the entire universe unless you define the entire universe as a computer with the single task of computing itself (and if that gets you tingling, have a google for the computational universe)
Maybe the Primary Reality has limitless computational power. Maybe its some cosmic entangled something-or-other, where all possible information is equally everywhere simultaneously. Infinite processing speeds would open up all sorts of possibilities.
Besides, simulating a universe is not as hard as it seems. Uber-AI only has to model what each mini-AI is experiencing at any given moment.
quote:
If you're saying there's some huge computer outside doing all this, well perhaps. Occam says that it's not likely, and you'll have no more evidence for that than for any other Big Thing Outside Universe Makes Universe Go theory. Of which there are plenty already.
If we manage to make real AI, then we're almost certainly living in a virtual world, whatever Occam might say. The evidence would be this: we will have made our own virtual universe and put mini-AIs in it. Next week, we'll have made 1000 of them. A million. If we can do it, so can someone else. They probably have. We're probably it.
The logic is inescapable. If we can create AI, we ourselves are almost certainly (perhaps indirectly) the creation of the Uber-intelligence.
--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."
Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
That's just not logical. Why can't there be plenty of (what you call) primary realities? Modern physics certainly has that as one of its plausible models. And "there can be any number" of x does not imply that y=x, unless you know more about other things that y could be, and the probabilities behind 'can'.
If the cosmic froth idea is true, that would be the Primary Reality. There can only be one, absolutely rock-bottom reality, by definition.
Reality does not depend on how we define it.
quote:
quote:
I can't speak for the reality of your world, but the one I'm in lacks any indication that it's computationally generated. There are limits to computation, you know: it can't "just grow" like magic beans, no matter how clever the AI. The maximum amount of computation possible in our observed universe is finite (and at least to some extent known), and it's not enough to simulate the entire universe unless you define the entire universe as a computer with the single task of computing itself (and if that gets you tingling, have a google for the computational universe)
Maybe the Primary Reality has limitless computational power. Maybe its some cosmic entangled something-or-other, where all possible information is equally everywhere simultaneously.
And maybe not. There's nothing here but baseless speculation!
quote:
Infinite processing speeds would open up all sorts of possibilities.
So would infinite speed, infinite energy and (in this discussion at least) infinite patience. What's this got to do with Darwin?
quote:
Besides, simulating a universe is not as hard as it seems.
Glad to hear it. Your practical evidence of this is?
quote:
Uber-AI only has to model what each mini-AI is experiencing at any given moment.
This seems so disconnected from anything usable that I'm not sure what it's doing here.
quote:
quote:
If you're saying there's some huge computer outside doing all this, well perhaps. Occam says that it's not likely, and you'll have no more evidence for that than for any other Big Thing Outside Universe Makes Universe Go theory. Of which there are plenty already.
If we manage to make real AI, then we're almost certainly living in a virtual world, whatever Occam might say. The evidence would be this: we will have made our own virtual universe and put mini-AIs in it. Next week, we'll have made 1000 of them. A million. If we can do it, so can someone else. They probably have. We're probably it.
None of that follows for a second. Computation doesn't just increase in power because of some divine fiat. Moore's "Law" just happens to apply at the moment (it didn't before the invention of the integrated circuit) because of a particular quirk in materials science at the moment. We'll be down to single-atom transistors soon enough, and we will _not_ have anywhere to go after that, at least not on the exponential. Thought can't change physics.
And just because we can do something doesn't say anything about how things happened in the past.
quote:
The logic is inescapable. If we
can create AI, we ourselves are almost certainly (perhaps indirectly) the creation of the Uber-intelligence.
That's not even logic!
All you have here is random speculation held together with the logical equivalent of candy-floss. Perhaps Heaven might be a better place? It's certainly got nothing to do with the creationist versus evolution malarky, where the IDers at least _claim_ to have something beyond "maybe".
R
--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.
Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
Reality does not depend on how we define it.
Whatever at bottom is, is Primary Reality. What else can you call it?
quote:
And maybe not. There's nothing here but baseless speculation!
Not fair. You said there is limited computation in our universe, and therefore virtual universes are impossible. I replied saying you've no idea of the computing power in the Primary Reality (nor do I), so you cannot use it as an argument. Rather, if we make AI, it will be an argument for Primary Reality having massive computing power.
quote:
What's this got to do with Darwin?
I means all our empirical eforts have been ludicrously, laughably wrong.
quote:
Glad to hear it. Your practical evidence of this is?
None whatsoever. I'm simply saying that computational power need not be the limiting factor you suggest.
quote:
This seems so disconnected from anything usable that I'm not sure what it's doing here.
Is truth is defined by utility?
quote:
None of that follows for a second. Computation doesn't just increase in power because of some divine fiat. Moore's "Law" just happens to apply at the moment (it didn't before the invention of the integrated circuit) because of a particular quirk in materials science at the moment. We'll be down to single-atom transistors soon enough, and we will _not_ have anywhere to go after that, at least not on the exponential. Thought can't change physics.
Our AI would grow exponentially. It would solve quantum computing before breakfast, and heaven-only knows what else. Before long, it could well be indistinguishable (to us at least) from God.
quote:
That's not even logic!
Let me refer you to Nick Bostrom, a philosopher from Yale, now at Oxford.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
Cheers.
--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."
Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
A teacher from Liverpool is urging the DfES to incorporate creationist materials into science lessons. Reports here from BBC News and here from the Grauniad. The suggested creationist material is from the somewhat inaccurately-named Truth in Science, and they claim it is "useful for debating Darwinist theories".
This looks like a fairly bog-standard creationist gambit - challenging a sacred cow, pointing out gaps in Darwinian theory, all the usual rhetoric. Of course, there's no attempt to explain why the challenge to the existing theory should take the form of creationist dogma, but I wouldn't expect anything else.
I happen to know something about the situation, and I am afraid to say you are correct.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
andyjoneszz
Shipmate
# 11045
|
Posted
quote:
nurks wrote: We don't know what is, only what seems to be.
Doesn't the record of God's self-revelation have implicit within it the notion that what seems to be, by and large actually is?
So your über-AI and its old-seeming universe(s) can't have anything to do with the Christian God (but perhaps it wasn't meant to).
Posts: 83 | From: Durham, UK | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Callan said in Styx:
I double-dog dare TonyK and Louise to arbitrarily move two or three threads from Dead Horses to Purgatory. Or Hell.
So this one is destined to the infernal regions where I hope it will infuriate the great one known as Rook (You're a three decker sauerkraut and toadstool sandwich
With arsenic sauce.)
With all due acknowledgements to any other dignitaries that I'm supposed to acknowledge!
Off we go...
During this thread's temporary residence in Hell during the Hosts' and Admins' Funtime in December 2006 it gained many extra posts. Most were irrelevant to the subject and have been deleted. Others had some relevance and have been left in situ. This will explain why posts dated over the next few days (up to 26th Dec 2006) may contain un-connected references.
Comment added 27th Dec 2006
Thread edited a second time by Louise, 8th April 2007, to remove the rest of the joke host/admin day posts to make the thread easier to follow.
[ 08. April 2007, 00:12: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
I have moved from a faith postion of YECS which never sat quite right with me to evolutionary theism. I have looked at ID and never found it quite satisfying.
Rather than annoy the Purg hosts anymore, would people like to engage thgis discussion here? (Sporadically over Easter of course).
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Just because I rather liked my post, I'm going to move it here. I would be interested in seeing some response, if it doesn't duplicate something that has already been said about sixteen times!
In relation to the idea that scientists can't accept the idea of a Creator:
Despite my father having been a research physicist who knew an assortment of skeptics such as Bertrand Russell and Julian Huxley, I canot say that he ever denied that the Creation was an act of God. Similarly, I think you will find that many people studying the process of development after the Big Bang, or whatever start-up event there may have been, do not care to quantify what came before that point.
Science deals with observable things and actions, and attempts to discern what patterns there may be, what rules may be theorised from those patterns, and what common threads there may be across the spectrum of observation. No reputable scientist would care to do more than theorise about that which he cannot observe in some manner.
And a theory is not a fact. Hence, evolution is a theory that fits observable facts, so it is a useful theory.
YEC does not fit enough observable facts to be credible, particularly because it denies the existence of some easily-observable facts.
ID is an attempt to "fill in" what are seen as gaps in the reasoning, and to provide a theory for what occurred before the facts became facts. It is a theory. Because it argues from an unprovable base, it is suspect in "scientific" terms.
But, just like cheering for "your" footie team works for you, even if the fact-base is arguable, ID can "work" for those who are unhappy with uncertainties between Scripture and science.
But the clues we have here on Earth were put there by God as He built the place, so discarding some of those clues leaves you open to accusations of lack of faith, or, possibly, neo-atheism, ISTM.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
I would concur science provides 'hows' and theology 'whys'. The why will always be a faith statement.
This is where Dawkins fails. He takes 'hows' and interpolates 'whys' yet denying the faith element to what he says.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
I've never really understood the difference between how and why - or at least, never found a parity between them. I suppose it's because I can't conceive of a purpose without an underlying mechanism, but can happily think of mechanism without underlying purpose. Why is the sky blue is the same question to me as how is the sky blue; any attempt to impart some sort of purpose to the colour of the sky seems otiose.
R
--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.
Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
okay. having a vacation until monday and back in san jose. I should finish catching up on my Quicken...and also read all 31 pages of this thread.
My last post in purg probably should have been here, but I did not post here since I had not read the thread.
I am posting though so as to bookmark and it and also add just this last page (read it) has been a great read.
It is a pretty emotive topic in some ways, I think.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
I've never really understood the difference between how and why - or at least, never found a parity between them. I suppose it's because I can't conceive of a purpose without an underlying mechanism, but can happily think of mechanism without underlying purpose. Why is the sky blue is the same question to me as how is the sky blue; any attempt to impart some sort of purpose to the colour of the sky seems otiose.
R
May I use an example of my existence.
How do I exist. Through a process of evolution or Creation. But this doesn't answer why do I exist?
The how is scientific in that it can describe the process of something.
But the Why underpins the How and often it cannot be explained but merely taken on faith.
i.e. I exist because God loves me and made me to be in relationship with him through [insert the how of your choice] or It is purely chance with no deeper meaning but part of a beautiful chaotic dance through [insert the how of your choice].
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I have no particular axe to grind for ID, but recently another poster brought up a question which seemed to me a good one in the days when I believed in it, and which I still don't see the answer to.
If ID is unscientific, what about SETI? As I understand it, the idea is to scan space for radio transmissions, and when one is found with a certain degree of regularity, this is taken to be evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence and not chance.
If a significant amount of information in a radio transmission is evidence of intelligence, then why isn't the large amount of information in DNA taken as evidence for intelligent design? Or to put the question the other way round: if random mutations are enough to explain the complexity of DNA, why can't chance similarly explain regular radio transmissions?
That said, how far do scientists take the methodology of SETI seriously?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I have no particular axe to grind for ID, but recently another poster brought up a question which seemed to me a good one in the days when I believed in it.
Quote sourced: it was CrookedCucumber.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If a significant amount of information in a radio transmission is evidence of intelligence, then why isn't the large amount of information in DNA taken as evidence for intelligent design? Or to put the question the other way round: if random mutations are enough to explain the complexity of DNA, why can't chance similarly explain regular radio transmissions?
This is the crux of the matter - these are very different sorts of randomness. Random mutations in organisms lead to varying evolutionary pressures - creatures with mutation A die horrible deaths, creatures with mutation B live long, prosper, go forth and multiply. Consequently, all their heirs and successors have mutation B. Although the mutations are random, their selection and propagation isn't.
A random radio source on the other hand, has no history, no memory. Something like an unstable star doesn't repeat a pattern because it worked before - it just spews out any old radiation. If you want to know what that looks like, de-tune your TV or radio. A repeatable, complex pattern in an extraterrestrial / extrasolar radio source would be evidence of some form of control, so that the known pattern could be reproduced.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
But if the radio emissions are truly random, then you might get a repeatable, complex pattern. If I paid someone* to toss a million pound coins, they might all come up heads.
The question is at what point does pure chance become less likely an explanation than intelligence when we've got no other evidence that such intelligence exists.
Is the issue with Dembski's notion of CSI
a.) that it's an inherently unscientific idea, i.e. that there's no point at which a stream of apparent information cannot arise by chance, or
b.) that it's a sound idea in principle, but DNA coding is not sufficiently complicated to qualify, especially given that it is influenced by non-arbitrary factors such as natural selection and reproduction?
* Well, I'm not doing it by myself...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But if the radio emissions are truly random, then you might get a repeatable, complex pattern. If I paid someone* to toss a million pound coins, they might all come up heads.
You might, but you would expect, on average, to wait many times the age of the universe so far to observe even one such occurrence. (For example - a million people each flip a coin, every second. They will all come down the same (either all heads or all tails) on time in 2^999,999 - so you might expect to wait 2^999,998 seconds, on average, before one such instance occurred. There are approximately 2^25 seconds in a year. So you would be waiting 2^999,973 years. There have so far been somewhat less than 2^24 years, ever.
The situation for complex radio emissions is even uglier.
quote:
The question is at what point does pure chance become less likely an explanation than intelligence when we've got no other evidence that such intelligence exists.
Is the issue with Dembski's notion of CSI
a.) that it's an inherently unscientific idea, i.e. that there's no point at which a stream of apparent information cannot arise by chance, or
b.) that it's a sound idea in principle, but DNA coding is not sufficiently complicated to qualify, especially given that it is influenced by non-arbitrary factors such as natural selection and reproduction?
It's simple: DNA coding is not random. It's not the product of a random process. It's the product of extremely rigorous selection from a random sample. It's as though those million people toss coins, and I take the 100,000 first heads, and say "Look! A hundred thousand people threw heads!"
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Thanks. I hadn't thought of the age of the universe as being a limiting factor ...
Nonetheless, surely DNA coding is a mixture of random and non-random factors? E.g. a certain coding XYZ might become dominant because it's better equipped for survival than its rivals, and so its propagation is not random - but the fact of its arising in the first place is due to random mutations.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
... which is the point you were addressing. Sorry.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
For an example of how difficult it can be to interpret whether a given stream of data is patterned or random, try investigating the question of whether π is 'normal' - that is, whether it contains each of the digits 0-9 in an even proportion. Amazingly, it seems still to be unknown!
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
DNA sequences are certainly not random and are be packed full of information but they don't look like messages. They are all mixed up and packaged in weird ways, and full of all sorts of stuff that you might not expect to be there.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Another difference between SETI and ID is that the former provides a plausible scientific mechanism by which ET could be communicating through radio waves. Scientifically it is quite feasible - likely even - that ET lives somewhere out there, and it is also possible that it would evolve into complex intelligent life-forms that attempt to communicate with aliens. We know, because that's exactly what we have done.
OTOH, I've never come across anywhere where the ID proponents explain precisely what the physical mechanism for their idea is. Do atoms just coalesce in some funny way under the control of little angels? Does God intervene to smite the individuals carrying gene-combinations that He doesn't favour? To be considered a scientific hypothesis, an idea must have some potential mechanism underlying it... and to my mind it is this that separates out SETI from ID.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
To be honest it's a false analogy. There are certain scientists who look for evidence of design all the time. Archeologists, for example or forensic scientists. Is that oddly shaped piece of flint an arrow head or just an oddly shaped piece of flint. Was that bump on the deceased's head caused by his falling down the stairs when drunk or was it administered by Colonel Mustard with a length of lead piping.
SETI is much closer to the above examples than it is to trying to find gaps in the fossil record or arguing that the Bomardier beetle couldn't have evolved without God zipping in to ensure that the chemicals evolved safely. As dj_ordinaire points out we already know that there are sentient beings who use radios to communicate. SETI just attempts to establish whether any of them live on other planets. It doesn't have the same recourse to metaphysics as ID has.
Given ID's studied hostility to methodological naturalism it seems slightly disingenuous to suggest an enterprise which can be carried on, on methodologically natural premises is some kind of analogy for an enterprise which maintains that methodological naturalism is a flawed method.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
