B
buffalo
Guest
Yes - that is the EES. Self organization into parts that somehow in the future will self assemble to make molecular machines, all unguided.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PNAS Authors Resort to Teleological Language in Failed Attempt to Explain Evolution of Irreducible Complexity
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Evolution is science, and science studies reality. Saying anything more is not being honest with oneself.No offense to you or to atheists, but the current formula is this:
Evolution is science is rationality is reality. It is a pillar of belief for those who worship the mind of man.
I do not understand? No, that’s not it. When I see some TV pundit browbeating a politician with “Do you believe in evolution?” I have come to realize that all that is going on is a Clash Of Orthodoxies. One Ultra-Orthodox belief system against another.
Rally for Reason, an organization primarily sponsored by atheists, protested outside of the Creation Museum. I watched a video of the event. Did they challenge in a specific way any of the claims made by the museum? No, of course not. But there are specific anomalies that what is called science refuses to deal with. The video went on with various people making very vague comments about the very vague danger of parents and their kids going into the museum and believing what they see. Gasp! What exactly will happen? They didn’t say.
But one lady revealed their only real concern “If this ends up in schools, I’ll sue. They aren’t going to use my tax money to teach this.”
So please don’t attempt to tell people you just don’t understand. There has been too much time and effort expended here and elsewhere on the internet to explain science. This isn’t about explaining science. This is 99.9% about convincing people that some mindless, non-goal oriented, self-starting process led to all life. That is the goal.
The biology textbook alone is not able to explain the origin of man.
Peace,
Ed
Some broughbeating does go on, but it’s been going on for some time and I doubt it’ll change. That’s politics after all. If our founding fathers came back for an interview, the media would probably harass them about owning slaves (hilarious SNL skit actually). I’m not sure why people would picket the creation museum… that’s pretty silly to me. I have no problem with that museum being there, although I personally think it’s a shame that it exists.
The problem with most evolution debates is that those debating against it have not researched it and most of the time have no real concept of what they’re even debating against. That is my main issue with those saying “it’s just a theory” or that “there is no evidence for it” or other such nonsense.
The biology textbook shouldn’t be trying to explain the origin of man… but it sure as hell should talk about how we likely evolved. We are animals after all, the earth is billions of years old, and until science explains why all the thousands of experiments and evidence pointing to those conclusions are wrong, the science book should stick to science that’s un-regulated by political objection.
Edit: Clarified for Buffalo.
B
buffalo
Guest
What other science study reality?Evolution is science… which studies reality. Saying anything more is not being honest with oneself.
Some broughbeating does go on, but it’s been going on for some time and I doubt it’ll change. That’s politics after all. If our founding fathers came back for an interview, the media would probably harass them about owning slaves (hilarious SNL skit actually). I’m not sure why people would picket the creation museum… that’s pretty silly to me. I have no problem with that museum being there, although I personally think it’s a shame that it exists.
The problem with most evolution debates is that those debating against it have not researched it and most of the time have no real concept of what they’re even debating against. That is my main issue with those saying “it’s just a theory” or that “there is no evidence for it” or other such nonsense.
The biology textbook shouldn’t be trying to explain the origin of man… but it sure as hell should talk about how we likely evolved. We are animals after all, the earth is billions of years old, and until science explains why all the thousands of experiments and evidence pointing to those conclusions are wrong, the science book should stick to science that’s un-regulated by political objection.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Do you mean science studies all reality? If so prove it.Evolution is science, and science studies reality. Saying anything more is not being honest with oneself.
In other words it shouldn’t be trying to explain the personal, intellectual, spiritual and moral aspects of human beings…The biology textbook shouldn’t be trying to explain the origin of man… but it sure as hell should talk about how we likely evolved.
L
liquidpele
Guest
I didn’t put “all” in that sentence for a reason. Science studies reality.Do you mean science studies all reality? If so prove it.
In other words it shouldn’t be trying to explain the personal, intellectual, spiritual and moral aspects of human beings…
Now you’re getting specific… I don’t think a biology textbook should hit those points… psychology and sociology might though.
B
buffalo
Guest
How about metaphysics and philosophy? How about the Divine science aka theology?I didn’t put “all” in that sentence for a reason. Science studies reality.
Now you’re getting specific… I don’t think a biology textbook should hit those points… psychology and sociology might though.
L
liquidpele
Guest
If it is governed by the scientific method, then it’s science. I’m not sure those qualify.How about metaphysics and philosophy? How about the Divine science aka theology?
B
buffalo
Guest
sci⋅enceIf it is governed by the scientific method, then it’s science. I’m not sure those qualify.
cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif /ˈsaɪhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəns/ cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif Show Spelled Pronunciation [sahy-uh[URL]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngns[/URL]] [URL='http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html']cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif[/URL] Show IPA [URL='http://ask.reference.com/web?q=Use+science+in+a+Sentence&qsrc=2892&o=101993'] in a Sentence[B]science[/B][/URL]
[URL='http://ask.reference.com/web?q=science&o=100049']See web results for [B]science[/B][/URL]
[URL='http://ask.reference.com/pictures?q=science&o=100049']See images of [B]science[/B][/URL]
–noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6. a particular branch of knowledge. 7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
L
liquidpele
Guest
sci⋅ence
cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif /ˈsaɪhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəns/ cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif Show Spelled Pronunciation [sahy-uh[URL]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
ns] [URL='http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html']cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif[/URL] Show IPA [URL='http://ask.reference.com/web?q=Use+science+in+a+Sentence&qsrc=2892&o=101993'] in a Sentence[B]science[/B][/URL]
[URL='http://ask.reference.com/web?q=science&o=100049']See web results for [B]science[/B][/URL]
[URL='http://ask.reference.com/pictures?q=science&o=100049']See images of [B]science[/B][/URL]
–noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6. a particular branch of knowledge. 7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
Congratulations, you’ve discovered that words can have more than one definition. Check out the word “theory” for even more fun.
B
buffalo
Guest
Based on your previous posts it is you who now know that science is the study of knowledge.Congratulations, you’ve discovered that words can have more than one definition. Check out the word “theory” for even more fun.
J
johngh
Guest
Irreducible complexity is as far as im concerned proof of the arrogance and nerve of scientists. When faced with a question they cannot answer they simply say “it just is” and expect for everyone to just accept that, which sadly so many people do. I don’t think anyone will really argue that step by step evolution does occur, but frankly unless scientists can come up with a real explanation for irreducible complexity then the theory of evolution as a theory of how life first came into existence is for all intents and purposes, dead.
E
edwest2
Guest
“step by step evolution”? What steps? Does random mutation follow steps? The steps between a light sensitive spot to a full eyeball with optic nerve and proper brain connection?
Evolution is “just” change over time? Fish to men? Just add a billion years?
One can imagine a great deal but, according to science, man was not a necessary consequence of evolution. The Church doesn’t agree with that.
Peace,
Ed
Evolution is “just” change over time? Fish to men? Just add a billion years?
One can imagine a great deal but, according to science, man was not a necessary consequence of evolution. The Church doesn’t agree with that.
Peace,
Ed
L
liquidpele
Guest
The problem of “irreducible complexity” is that it’s only irreducible because we haven’t figured it out yet. The eye used to be, the flagellum used to be, etc etc. These scientists have the “nerve” alright… not to just say it is, but to refuse to accept that we can’t understand it. You’re yelling at the same scientific principals, inquiry, and curiosity that made the computer you’re typing on possible. If anything, the only people claiming that “it just is” are the religious. Even if God did design the framework, are you so blind in your faith to not try and understand his work?Irreducible complexity is as far as im concerned proof of the arrogance and nerve of scientists. When faced with a question they cannot answer they simply say “it just is” and expect for everyone to just accept that, which sadly so many people do. I don’t think anyone will really argue that step by step evolution does occur, but frankly unless scientists can come up with a real explanation for irreducible complexity then the theory of evolution as a theory of how life first came into existence is for all intents and purposes, dead.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Strawmen all around. Don’t you get tired of that?“step by step evolution”? What steps? Does random mutation follow steps? The steps between a light sensitive spot to a full eyeball with optic nerve and proper brain connection?
Evolution is “just” change over time? Fish to men? Just add a billion years?
One can imagine a great deal but, according to science, man was not a necessary consequence of evolution. The Church doesn’t agree with that.
Peace,
Ed
L
liquidpele
Guest
Of course it is. It studies it… wait for it… using the scientific method! Yay for the age of reason and it’s newfangled ideas.Based on your previous posts it is you who now know that science is the study of knowledge.
B
buffalo
Guest
Your claim is knowledge cannot be found other than by using the scientific method?Of course it is. It studies it… wait for it… using the scientific method! Yay for the age of reason and it’s newfangled ideas.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Not at all. However, I would claim that evidence found using it should trump other forms. Careful measurements showed us that the earth revolved around the sun when it seemed so utterly preposterous at the time. The power of the scientific method is that it demands that we set aside our biases if we want to do it right.Your claim is knowledge cannot be found other than by using the scientific method?
B
buffalo
Guest
Indeed it does. The gathering of data is not really the issue. The issue is the interpretation has to fit with an a priori naturalistic worldview.Not at all. However, I would claim that evidence found using it should trump other forms. Careful measurements showed us that the earth revolved around the sun when it seemed so utterly preposterous at the time. The power of the scientific method is that it demands that we set aside our biases if we want to do it right.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
I think the root of the problem is not in the theory, but rather peoples misunderstanding of what science is. It simply does not matter if God is the correct answer. Science is the study of physical phenomenon. Thats it. If they never find a physical answer for irreducible complexity, it doesn’t matter. All that science can say is that they don’t no, because its not the province of science to “know” about supernatural events.Irreducible complexity is as far as im concerned proof of the arrogance and nerve of scientists. When faced with a question they cannot answer they simply say “it just is” and expect for everyone to just accept that, which sadly so many people do. I don’t think anyone will really argue that step by step evolution does occur, but frankly unless scientists can come up with a real explanation for irreducible complexity then the theory of evolution as a theory of how life first came into existence is for all intents and purposes, dead.
There is another fallacy involved. People think that science is the basis for epistemological authority. They assume that other branches of knowing such as metaphysics or philosophy in general has no authoritative application beyond what the scientific method judges of them. This is the idea that science has taken over all other forms of knowing. This is false. This is not to say that science does not have the power to inform philosophy. However, people fail to realize that science has authority only within a particular domain of understanding objective beings/how they function. And in so far as this is the investigative end of science, the empirical method allows us to understand particular things about the particular functions of particular beings which we could not have known in detail through philosophy by itself. There are so many possibilities about the function of things, that philosophy could never give an accurate picture of what really going on in regards to particular events. Thus Science is efficient in dealing with beings in their particularity. While metaphysics deals with beings as a whole/ beginnings and ends. It deals with beings in general. It deals with ultimates. It deals with the principles and axioms which science basis its interpretation of empirical events on. Metaphysics/philosophy helps us to understand things like, “out of nothing comes nothing”; but the empirical method cannot give us this information, since it doesn’t measure the meanings of things, the meaning of being, it doesn’t give us an understanding of potentiality or procession or principles such as “Occams-razor”. These logical truths, principles of knowledge, or axioms, are assumed by science. When it comes to dealing with the existence of beings in general, Metaphysics has more authority then science.
Like many atheists and uninformed people in general, Intelligent design theorist have fallen for the same fallacious belief that science is an authority on all truth and that no truth is acceptable outside of scientific verification. Thats why they keep pushing this dead donkey hoping that it will once again walk. The problem is that they are inadvertently helping to spread the fallacy that science has defeated all genuine teleological arguments through the theory of evolution; and this is partly influenced by the fact that some ID theorists are promoting their ideas as alternatives to the standard version of the empirical methods. They are pushing this to the extent that we should even investigate claims of fairies. This damaging for the synthesis between philosophy and religion. The Teleological arguments are not scientific theories, they are philosophical interpretations based on observation and the inference of logical necessity. Some these arguments are poor, because they are used to explain that which is explainable by science & philosophy together. The very best of all teleological arguments do not undermine evolution, but rather adds to the overall understanding of physical reality.
Irreducible complexity may have some philosophical authority, i don’t know how much; but it has no empirical authority, even if its true. You cannot empirically prove the existence of God using a method that applies only to physical objects.
Thats just my feeling on the matter. It seems to me that we do more damage to Christianity by failing to understand the difference between science and philosophy and the different forms of knowledge they deal with.
E
edwest2
Guest
Let me be very clear: the current conflict is between faith and what is called science.
What did Paul say? If Christ is not risen then your faith is in vain. Let me repeat that another way: If Jesus Christ did not actually rise from the dead, then you have nothing to believe in. If it didn’t actually happen, you’ve got nothing.
People post here all the time: Science can say nothing about God. Science is silent about God and the supernatural. Or the more confrontational: Show me one peer reviewed scientific paper that says anything about God.
But…
People are so confident that something is true, that they post here: “You’re holy book is wrong, here, here and here, because science says so.”
Got it?
Peace,
Ed
What did Paul say? If Christ is not risen then your faith is in vain. Let me repeat that another way: If Jesus Christ did not actually rise from the dead, then you have nothing to believe in. If it didn’t actually happen, you’ve got nothing.
People post here all the time: Science can say nothing about God. Science is silent about God and the supernatural. Or the more confrontational: Show me one peer reviewed scientific paper that says anything about God.
But…
People are so confident that something is true, that they post here: “You’re holy book is wrong, here, here and here, because science says so.”
Got it?
Peace,
Ed
- Status
- Not open for further replies.