I
itinerant1
Guest
No, I had not given abiogenesis a thought.
I don’t know what you mean by samples.
You seem to be assuming that IR systems actually exist in nature? If so, I disagree.
- Status
I don’t know what you mean by samples.
You seem to be assuming that IR systems actually exist in nature? If so, I disagree.
G
grannymh
Guest
Samples are what have been chosen to be examined for irreducible complexity. Please see work of Dr. Michael J. Behe
Don’t remember assuming plural systems. Are you referring to the question I asked – which does need to be answered by someone.
Once that question is answered properly, then this question should be asked.
Blessings,
granny
The human person is worthy of profound respect.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I have read books by Michael Behe.
Do you know what he means by systems that are Irreducibly Complex?
It seems that you are assuming that there are actually irreducibly complex systems in nature.
I disagree with the hypothesis of irreducibly complex systems. I think Behe has made a wrong assumption, altogether.
I
itinerant1
Guest
For the sake of clarity my position is that there is no compelling reason to believe in the existence of irreducibly complex systems or organisms in nature.
R
rossum
Guest
What do you think Astronomers would think if Astrology had to be taught in Astronomy classes? What about Alchemy in Chemistry Classes? What about Islam in a Christian Sunday School class? Science classes are for teaching science. ID and creationism are not science and should be taught in theology, philosophy or politics classes. They are not suitable for science classes. There is too much in the curriculum as it is without adding more. There are also creationists trying to get their nonsense into UK science classes.
Creationism used to be the best scientific explanation we had. As an explanation for geology it was dropped in the first quarter of the 19th century. As an explanation for the variety of species it was dropped in 1859. It is currently in the process of being replaced as an explanation for abiogenesis, the origin of life.
I care about truth, one of the Buddhist moral rules is “to avoid false and malicious speech”. A late bronze age treatment of the origin of the universe does not hack it as a modern scientific explanation. It is fine in a religion class, a literature class or similar but it is not science any more than the gods churning the sea of milk from Hindu legend is science.
For five years I taught Maths and Physics to 11 - 18 year olds. Would you want a Buddhist telling children what he really thought of YEC? Do you think that would enhance those kid’s appreciation of Christianity and the Bible? My classes contained, to my knowledge, Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Sikhs and atheists. Why should just the Christian version get taught?
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
did these IR systems come about and when?? Perhaps you have not given this much thought.
.
They were “breathed” right at the beginning. Sort of the prime matter St Augustine speaks of.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
S
StAnastasia
Guest
rossum, for the sake of fairness and balance you could of course teach the origins myths of all the religions, not just that of Jews and Christians. Of course, this might leave you little time in the term to get around tot eh science you need to teach!
G
grannymh
Guest
To cut to the chase – Do you consider human nature a system?
Once I understand your point of view regarding human nature, I can reorganize my approach to match your terminology. Thank you.
G
grannymh
Guest
In post 1182, I asked a straight up question – Do you consider human nature a system?
Should I have asked – are there any kind of “systems” in nature? What would be their description?
G
grannymh
Guest
If I were teaching earth science – heaven forbid – I would present various methods and materials. Understanding the full scope of methods and materials is the foundation which can be used anytime in future discoveries. “How to learn” is actually more important when preparing young people for future careers in science.
G
grannymh
Guest
Would you kindly ask Michael Tkacz if he would share his mailing address (snail mail) with me? I have a couple of questions and opinions regarding St. Thomas Aquinas’ positions on science and if these are applicable today.
Please note that when I contact biologists with questions, I find it quite useful to add that
I am not a creationist or an ID proponent. Since I am well aware of Tkacz’ position, it would be useful for you to tell him that I am not a creationist or an ID proponent. If you think it necessary, please add that I am not a YEC.
Thank you.
Blessings,
granny
Isaiah 55
R
rossum
Guest
I could probably let you see your children for about 30 minutes a fortnight, the rest of the time they will be in lessons.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
I agree and in physics I did cover a few old theories, Phlogiston for instance, to help explain the scientific method but there was not enough time to do that aspect of the subject full justice. Most of that has to be done in universities where it will be of more use to science specialists.
rossum
R
ricmat
Guest
That’s exactly what happened in ages past. Astrology and Alchemy turned out to be wrong. How do you know you are not wrong now?
I teach Catholic classes to high school and adult students. We frequently discuss the beliefs of other religions. One can say “This is what they believe” without saying “You must believe it.”
You continually equate ID with young earth creationism. They are not the same, as I frequently point out. ID says that certain features seen in nature are designed. No mention of God. Nothing about “God did it, and that’s it. End of class. Dismissed.”
There is an artificial barrier recently constructed between religion and science. Lots of good science was done before that barrier was erected.
**Please read Privileged Planet, and Signature in the Cell, and tell me exactly what is not suitable for science class. **
I think OOL is going in the other direction…Read SITC.
I think that a Buddhist with self control could manage to teach alternative theories of nature without managing to teach what he *really *thought. For example, I can talk about Buddhism without trashing it. And when I talk about it I can usually find good things to say about it.
And what is truth anyway? Your current signature says “The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.” So what then is false speech?
This article popped up yesterday in my RSS feeds. If you skip the first 1/3 or so, what follows is a fairly lengthy presentation of what ID really is (including “how big is it’s tent”), and how it is mis-perceived by many folks. It would be good for many here to read it.
uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/olive-branch-from-karl-giberson/
G
grannymh
Guest
I
itinerant1
Guest
I am not sure that I would consider “human nature” to be a system in the same sense that in biology we can consider an assemblage of organs or related tissues concerned with the same function to be a system, or the entire human or animal body considered as a functioning unit as a system. The deeper question considers what is the organizing principle of the organic system.
In non-biological reality, we recognize many systems, too, such as the solar system.
Biological systems, while very complex, are no more irreducibly complex than are physical systems or such things as plate tectonics. In fact, if we strictly apply Behe’s definition of IR systems, then plate tectonics involves irreducible complexity.
I
itinerant1
Guest
What was the the state of the universe at this beginning, and what were its subsequent states?
What does “breathed” mean in this context? That is, what precisely took place in regard to the effects?
That is, What scientific evidence is there for your claims? Since you are apparently posing a “creationist” alternative to the origin of both the universe and organisms, what physical evidence is there to support your hypothesis since it is an hypothesis that differs from evidence for Big Bang origin, and an earth that is 4.5 billion years old, and the long processes of biological evolution, there must be scientific facts to be cited, or at the very least your hypothesis should not contradict known and generally accepted scientific facts. And your answer is…???
(So, that there is no confusion on my reference to origins, I submit that even with the acceptance of Big Bang and biological evolution theories, there would still have been, and of necessity, an ontologically prior creatio ex nihilo.)
B
buffalo
Guest
Because there was an intelligent creator nature is front loaded with complex information and purpose right from the get go.
R
rossum
Guest
That is the nature of science. We can only give the best answer we currently have. We cannot eliminate the possibility that we will have a better answer in future. In this context Isaac Asimov’s essay “The Relativity of Wrong” is well worth reading.
They are indeed different, YEC is laughable while ID is just wrong, though it is wrong in an interesting way and has given rise to some good scientific work to refute it. Neither as presently constituted is science and to that extent they are equal. YEC has no chance of ever becoming science while ID might become science if it does a lot more work on the scientific part of its remit rather than the political or theological part.
I do not see a barrier between religion and science. I do see a barrier between some forms of religion and some interpretations of science. Richard Dawkins is a scientist but he does not speak for all scientists; Francis Collins and Ken Miller are also scientists.
The default position of science is “we don’t know”. The failure of theory X to explain something is not evidence for theory Y – if theory X fails then science reverts to “we don’t know”. Theory Y might be equally wrong because actually theory Z is correct. A great deal of pro ID argumentation is along the lines of “the current theory cannot explain this phenomenon”. In science that just shows up a possible gap in the current theory. It is not evidence for an alternative theory. This accounts for the scientific disdain for the “designer of the gaps”.
To be more specific I would list: The lack of any evidence of any designer/s. The lack of any mechanism for a designer to actually rearrange DNA molecules or planets to instantiate a particular design. The failure of ID to produce any realistic CSI calculations. The success of experiments showing that IC systems can evolve.
Whenever ID has made a testable prediction that prediction has been tested and failed. Failed predictions are not science, or at most are part of the history of science along with Phlogiston and the Luminiferous Ether.
I could not talk about YEC without trashing it because it is patently untrue. I could probably give a reasonably unbiased presentation of ID: “somebody did something somehow somewhen, and we are still working on the details”.
There is truth and there is (not) Ultimate Truth.
ID might possibly be able to turn itself into science. If and when it has done so it will have a legitimate place in science classes. Currently it has not yet done the grind of putting together enough detail to flesh out its hypotheses into proper science. It is trying to jump the queue and queue jumpers are not generally looked on kindly. ID has proposed some hypotheses. It has generally not tested those hypotheses so they remain hypotheses and are not fit to be taught in science classes. Many ID hypotheses are untestable and those that have been tested so far have failed. Failed or untested hypotheses are not fit for a school science class.
rossum
- Status