In a real sense of the word, we're all creationists now. This is certainly true of anyone in the field of biomimetics. It's even true of the most vociferous atheist. If he's studying the creation he's a creationist. (i.e. if the world was indeed created, as I'm confident it was.)
Quotes and comments;
1. "Biomimetic engineers have already learned a lot from nature, and no doubt the further study of organisms and their often surprising capabilities will suggest, for example, new ways to design materials, to create imaging and communication techniques, and to build stronger or more aerodynamic structures. The inspiration comes from observing what is normal for the organisms and wondering how they function and how we might mimic key features or superior properties." [1.]
- I see the creation as a storehouse of knowledge that God has planted on the earth for our benefit. It's like a huge library just waiting for someone to come in and find something to read.
Let's be topical and talk earthquakes. Atheist thinkers have often used the earthquake argument to deny or vilify god; but what if all the knowledge we need to predict earthquakes is lying ready in nature? i.e. what if there are animals (organisms) that are able to predict earthquakes. We could study these creatures and learn methods for detecting earthquakes, and advance warning systems. This would mean all the deaths associated with the 'Lisbons' of history were unnecessary... that the knowledge we needed was readily available, but we just didn't make use of it.
It's possible certain animals avoid living in earthquake zones, or avoid certain areas at certain times. If we decide to live where we know earthquakes will one day happen, it's certainly no fault of God's.
- Mike 'the motorsike' Johnson [4.]
Notes;
1. Plagiarizing Nature Creation/Evolution Headlines 03/28/2011
'In Science March 18, Marc Lavine reviewed a recent book on biomimetics edited by Robert Allen with the amusing title Bulletproof Feathers: How Science Uses Nature’s Secrets to Design Cutting-Edge Technology (University of Chicago Press, 2010).
2. LiveScience;
“The thinking behind scientists’ interest in super-small DNA bots is that in order to replicate some amazing abilities in nature, one must go very small.” Even more shocking, they are using intelligent design: “‘Information is programmed into the design of the base sequences of the DNA strands,’ [Andrew] Turberfield said.”
- Very interesting. A belief in materialism leads scientists to ignore information when they speak of the make up of an organ etc. They restrict themselves to its physical components, but ignore the encoded information. If there is an 'essence' to an organism, it's the information that in-forms the physical matter. Information is the key component of all organisms. There is only one source for information that we know of, and that's intelligence.
3. Biomimetics;
'The study of the structure and function of living things as models for the creation of materials or products by reverse engineering.'
- Hm. Can you reverse engineer something that wasn't first engineered :=}
4. I'm adding a nick name just for today, in honor of my elderly mother who is not feeling well. She used to call me this name when she was in a good mood. Get well soon Mother. (I hope I spelled motorsike correctly.)
- when I was a boy I almost lived on a bicycle.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Self repair as evidence of design
Self-repair is only a capacity of living organisms. Rocks that fall and break apart don't have a mechanism that puts them back together again. I don't see that self-repair would be predicted from physics. I see it as the product of intelligence.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Some 10 times a day in a given cell, your DNA breaks on both strands. This is an emergency. Unless repaired quickly, serious diseases, like cancer, can develop. But no fear: the first responder is an octopus-shaped protein complex that rushes to the rescue, wraps around the damaged site, and brings in all the parts needed to fix it. [1.]
- This strikes me as a system designed to prevent evolution. Such a system would seem to be predicted by the creation model. e.g. it would seem likely care was taken to make sure man didn't die out, and that he didn't change (evolve) into something else entirely. Measures would have to be taken to ensure the ongoing viability of the the organism. (I'm referring to macro evolution)
2. 'How a set of proteins can sense damage, migrate to a repair site, assess the extent of the break and select the correct repair option, link up to other tools, bring in parts, and put everything back together again is surely one of the wonders of biology coming to light with new observing techniques. [1.]
- I don't know how such systems could evolve; they seem to be the opposite of evolution. The more we know about the biological self the more amazing it is any of are alive, that we can survive 70 years or more. Great care had to have been taken to provide self-repair mechanisms to allow our continued existence.
''The abstract did not mention evolution except to say that the parts are “conserved” (unevolved) across all living things.' [1.]
- Maybe I'm missing something, but I see 'conserved mechanisms' as evidence against evolution. If all is evolution, if nothing in biology makes sense apart from evolution, why are so many factors conserved? i.e. why don't they evolve? To me this means designs are in place to work against evolution.
- The language here is interesting.
Conserve;
'late 14c., from O.Fr. conserver (9c.), from L. conservare "to keep, preserve, keep intact, guard," from com-, intensive prefix (see com-), + servare "keep watch, maintain"
- It seems to me that designs are in place to preserve, keep intact and guard important entities. We know that there are mechanisms within the cell that do indeed keep watch (to spot if things go wrong). This speaks clearly of design to me.
We know that viable machinery sent into space, and thus cut off from sources of human repair, must be able to repair themselves. Systems need to be in place that constantly monitor the functioning of the machine, and there must be mechanisms in place that can repair damage when it's spotted. We know from our own experience in designing (and imagining) space craft what to expect from any entity that has been designed for independent existence.
As space craft design gets more sophisticated we see that engineers are designing into these craft many of the features we see within the cell. In a way we could say that the cell is the ideal model for a space craft. If we could build a space craft that had all the same systems as the cell it could possibly explore the universe for millions or even billions of years.
Notes;
1. Your DNA Repairman Is Handy as an Octopus Creation/Evolution Headlines 03/27/2011
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Some 10 times a day in a given cell, your DNA breaks on both strands. This is an emergency. Unless repaired quickly, serious diseases, like cancer, can develop. But no fear: the first responder is an octopus-shaped protein complex that rushes to the rescue, wraps around the damaged site, and brings in all the parts needed to fix it. [1.]
- This strikes me as a system designed to prevent evolution. Such a system would seem to be predicted by the creation model. e.g. it would seem likely care was taken to make sure man didn't die out, and that he didn't change (evolve) into something else entirely. Measures would have to be taken to ensure the ongoing viability of the the organism. (I'm referring to macro evolution)
2. 'How a set of proteins can sense damage, migrate to a repair site, assess the extent of the break and select the correct repair option, link up to other tools, bring in parts, and put everything back together again is surely one of the wonders of biology coming to light with new observing techniques. [1.]
- I don't know how such systems could evolve; they seem to be the opposite of evolution. The more we know about the biological self the more amazing it is any of are alive, that we can survive 70 years or more. Great care had to have been taken to provide self-repair mechanisms to allow our continued existence.
''The abstract did not mention evolution except to say that the parts are “conserved” (unevolved) across all living things.' [1.]
- Maybe I'm missing something, but I see 'conserved mechanisms' as evidence against evolution. If all is evolution, if nothing in biology makes sense apart from evolution, why are so many factors conserved? i.e. why don't they evolve? To me this means designs are in place to work against evolution.
- The language here is interesting.
Conserve;
'late 14c., from O.Fr. conserver (9c.), from L. conservare "to keep, preserve, keep intact, guard," from com-, intensive prefix (see com-), + servare "keep watch, maintain"
- It seems to me that designs are in place to preserve, keep intact and guard important entities. We know that there are mechanisms within the cell that do indeed keep watch (to spot if things go wrong). This speaks clearly of design to me.
We know that viable machinery sent into space, and thus cut off from sources of human repair, must be able to repair themselves. Systems need to be in place that constantly monitor the functioning of the machine, and there must be mechanisms in place that can repair damage when it's spotted. We know from our own experience in designing (and imagining) space craft what to expect from any entity that has been designed for independent existence.
As space craft design gets more sophisticated we see that engineers are designing into these craft many of the features we see within the cell. In a way we could say that the cell is the ideal model for a space craft. If we could build a space craft that had all the same systems as the cell it could possibly explore the universe for millions or even billions of years.
Notes;
1. Your DNA Repairman Is Handy as an Octopus Creation/Evolution Headlines 03/27/2011
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Are we alone? Why do we care?
Today I want to make a few comments on a recent lecture given by Paul Davies. His lecture (The Eerie Silence) addresses the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence.
Quotes and comments;
1. He opens by saying the the biggest question out there is, are we alone in the universe? [1.]
- Isn't the biggest question does god exist? certainly people in the past thought so... but I suppose if you're certain God does not exist, then I suppose this does become the biggest question. It's not the biggest question for me; as I'm at least bright enough to realize I can't know that there isn't a God.
It intrigues me that it's perfectly acceptable to search for ETI (something we have no evidence of whatsoever) but it's not acceptable (among royal socity types) to search for god... of whom many claim there is abundant evidence. We see bias at work here. Davies claims that what the Seti Institute (not Yeti institute) does is real science. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't... but as of yet there is no evidence. He claims (humorously) that Seti is a sexy subject... well, maybe... but I think the search (quest) for God is more profound.
2. I find it interesting that Paul Allen (the rampant anti creationist) is funding a major SETI project (radio telescopes in California). It has struck me over the years that the more opposed to creation a person is, the more attracted they are to the search for ETI. (This can't be a purely scientific thing then can it? i.e. it may be science, or use some of the methods employed by pedestrian scientists, but the impulse is spiritual or philosophical if you prefer; i.e. metaphysical.)
The hope of the Allen project is that it will greatly increase the 'size' of the search; ie. the area looked at (listened to). This ignores the assumption of some, that if ETIs existed they would have spread throughout the universe by now. If that were the case it wouldn't help to increase the search area.
3. Davies says 'we have absolutely no evidence intelligent life exists beyond earth.'
4. He admits this is a speculative project... (so this would seem to admit that a subject can be both speculative and scientific)
5. Davies claims the problem is that this is a needle in a haystack search... but is it? How do we know? Again; this denies the idea I mentioned earlier. (Some people have argued that if there were ETI the universe would have at least machines scattered everywhere... exploring and so forth.)
6. He gives one possible explanation for the silence as being that no one out there know we exist; that since our radio signals have only being going out for a hundred years... anyone more than a hundred light years away wouldn't know we were here. (This too ignores the colonization project as it were... the fact ETIs would have spread out everywhere in the galaxy.)
7. At the 20 min. mark he admits aliens might have sent out probes...
8. He talks about Drake's famous equation (which I consider one of the greatest examples of wishful thinking out there... as it's utterly arbitrary, and not an equation at all.)
9. He claims there might be a trillion earth like planets in our galaxy alone (if I heard him right). I can only say then, that if the grand theory of evolution were true, we would most certainly not be alone... and that the galaxy would be filled with evidence of alien existence. (It's a relatively simple thing to send machines out into space after all... and theory states that many of these planets have existed for many billions of years before earth appeared.)
10. 'We don't know how life began' he says. (In my view we don't know how it could have began.)
11. "Man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he emerged only by chance. " - Jaques Monod
- Davies calls this, a rather sexist remark. Good grief... pc speech has turned our academics into clowns.) Well; contra Monod, we don't know this at all... though I suspect he's right for the reason I mentioned earlier.
By chance? I agree with people who say that if life did 'emerge' by undirected means it could not have been by chance. (The odds are just far too great.)
12. "Life is almost bound to arise... wherever conditions are similar to earth." - Christian deDuve
- This is the more popular view in our day. Notice that he just assumes there are planets similar to earth.) This is the idea 'life' happens by some kind of law; presumably a law of chemistry or physics. (If this were true you would think it would be easy to create life with OOL experiments... and we know this doesn't happen. This being the case I don't see how it can be a law at all.) I don't think 'life' can happen by chance, and I think OOL experiments have shown it doesn't happen by law either.
13. "Life is a cosmic imperative'' deDuve says.
14. Davies says life might have started on mars and come to earth. Why would anyone say that? A totally dead, barren planet gave birth to life on earth? This makes absolutely no sense to me, and show how desperate this alien hunters (whisperers) are. I consider this 'idea' to be only comical; fit only for a satirical sf novel.
15. It's interesting to me that scientists can talk about Mother Nature, but it's taboo to speak of god. (Gee; isn't mother nature a god? or a goddess? she/it certainly isn't an entity in the real world.)
16. Intelligence taks billions of years to evolve he says.
- He doesn't know that. That's theory and speculation. He doesn't bother to tell us how this could happen. No one knows how it could happen, but he feels free to just assume it. (ie. we know there is no god and therefore no creation; therefore e. must be true.) The idea that 'time' (the great wand waving fairy godmother of materialism) can do all things is a logical, philosophical fallacy. This idea really means that given enough time anything is possible; ie. time doesn't do anything, it just allows chance events to happen. The trouble with this idea is that 'life' violates all we know of chemistry and physics.
17. He claims earth is the most earth like planet. This is sophistry. Earth isn't earth like... it's earth itself. When we say x is like y we don't mean it is exactly the same. That makes no sense.
18. He talks of 'unknownons'...
- I take these are particles (or?) we haven't discovered yet. (It never seems to strike people that we may not yet be clever enough to discover god... that this is something that might await us in the future... when we've taken some advance in thinking or in technology... or made some new discovery. Atheists seem to take it for granted that they're clever enough to know if god exists.)
19. He tells us he's sure biological intelligence will be superseded by machine intelligence. (That makes no sense to me.) He talks about something called Quintelligence; some form of quantum intelligence... the size of a suitcase... out there between the galaxies. We see how desperate people are to answer the Fermi paradox. Apparently the greatest horror these people can imagine is that we are indeed unique. They will go to any length to escape this conclusion. One might wonder why. You see by this example how one need never abandon a cherished hypothesis if one doesn't want to.
20. Why should we do seti he muses. Well; he tells us it forces ust to ask the questions we should ask; eg. what is life? what is intelligence? what is the destiny of the human race?
- Should? Does he forget we're just matter in motion? This is a very weak response to his own question. If people want to play this game that's fine; but in no way should people be forced to pay taxes for such a thing. We can ask all these questions without seti.
21. He says that a quintelligence might be uninterested in anything beyond itself and so not seek us out. This can't be known of course... but it flies in the face of our interest in SETI... and presumes that these intelligences are all the same. I find that hard to believe.
Notes;
1. The eerie silence - Paul Davies; video lecture; Royal Society
Quotes and comments;
1. He opens by saying the the biggest question out there is, are we alone in the universe? [1.]
- Isn't the biggest question does god exist? certainly people in the past thought so... but I suppose if you're certain God does not exist, then I suppose this does become the biggest question. It's not the biggest question for me; as I'm at least bright enough to realize I can't know that there isn't a God.
It intrigues me that it's perfectly acceptable to search for ETI (something we have no evidence of whatsoever) but it's not acceptable (among royal socity types) to search for god... of whom many claim there is abundant evidence. We see bias at work here. Davies claims that what the Seti Institute (not Yeti institute) does is real science. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't... but as of yet there is no evidence. He claims (humorously) that Seti is a sexy subject... well, maybe... but I think the search (quest) for God is more profound.
2. I find it interesting that Paul Allen (the rampant anti creationist) is funding a major SETI project (radio telescopes in California). It has struck me over the years that the more opposed to creation a person is, the more attracted they are to the search for ETI. (This can't be a purely scientific thing then can it? i.e. it may be science, or use some of the methods employed by pedestrian scientists, but the impulse is spiritual or philosophical if you prefer; i.e. metaphysical.)
The hope of the Allen project is that it will greatly increase the 'size' of the search; ie. the area looked at (listened to). This ignores the assumption of some, that if ETIs existed they would have spread throughout the universe by now. If that were the case it wouldn't help to increase the search area.
3. Davies says 'we have absolutely no evidence intelligent life exists beyond earth.'
4. He admits this is a speculative project... (so this would seem to admit that a subject can be both speculative and scientific)
5. Davies claims the problem is that this is a needle in a haystack search... but is it? How do we know? Again; this denies the idea I mentioned earlier. (Some people have argued that if there were ETI the universe would have at least machines scattered everywhere... exploring and so forth.)
6. He gives one possible explanation for the silence as being that no one out there know we exist; that since our radio signals have only being going out for a hundred years... anyone more than a hundred light years away wouldn't know we were here. (This too ignores the colonization project as it were... the fact ETIs would have spread out everywhere in the galaxy.)
7. At the 20 min. mark he admits aliens might have sent out probes...
8. He talks about Drake's famous equation (which I consider one of the greatest examples of wishful thinking out there... as it's utterly arbitrary, and not an equation at all.)
9. He claims there might be a trillion earth like planets in our galaxy alone (if I heard him right). I can only say then, that if the grand theory of evolution were true, we would most certainly not be alone... and that the galaxy would be filled with evidence of alien existence. (It's a relatively simple thing to send machines out into space after all... and theory states that many of these planets have existed for many billions of years before earth appeared.)
10. 'We don't know how life began' he says. (In my view we don't know how it could have began.)
11. "Man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he emerged only by chance. " - Jaques Monod
- Davies calls this, a rather sexist remark. Good grief... pc speech has turned our academics into clowns.) Well; contra Monod, we don't know this at all... though I suspect he's right for the reason I mentioned earlier.
By chance? I agree with people who say that if life did 'emerge' by undirected means it could not have been by chance. (The odds are just far too great.)
12. "Life is almost bound to arise... wherever conditions are similar to earth." - Christian deDuve
- This is the more popular view in our day. Notice that he just assumes there are planets similar to earth.) This is the idea 'life' happens by some kind of law; presumably a law of chemistry or physics. (If this were true you would think it would be easy to create life with OOL experiments... and we know this doesn't happen. This being the case I don't see how it can be a law at all.) I don't think 'life' can happen by chance, and I think OOL experiments have shown it doesn't happen by law either.
13. "Life is a cosmic imperative'' deDuve says.
14. Davies says life might have started on mars and come to earth. Why would anyone say that? A totally dead, barren planet gave birth to life on earth? This makes absolutely no sense to me, and show how desperate this alien hunters (whisperers) are. I consider this 'idea' to be only comical; fit only for a satirical sf novel.
15. It's interesting to me that scientists can talk about Mother Nature, but it's taboo to speak of god. (Gee; isn't mother nature a god? or a goddess? she/it certainly isn't an entity in the real world.)
16. Intelligence taks billions of years to evolve he says.
- He doesn't know that. That's theory and speculation. He doesn't bother to tell us how this could happen. No one knows how it could happen, but he feels free to just assume it. (ie. we know there is no god and therefore no creation; therefore e. must be true.) The idea that 'time' (the great wand waving fairy godmother of materialism) can do all things is a logical, philosophical fallacy. This idea really means that given enough time anything is possible; ie. time doesn't do anything, it just allows chance events to happen. The trouble with this idea is that 'life' violates all we know of chemistry and physics.
17. He claims earth is the most earth like planet. This is sophistry. Earth isn't earth like... it's earth itself. When we say x is like y we don't mean it is exactly the same. That makes no sense.
18. He talks of 'unknownons'...
- I take these are particles (or?) we haven't discovered yet. (It never seems to strike people that we may not yet be clever enough to discover god... that this is something that might await us in the future... when we've taken some advance in thinking or in technology... or made some new discovery. Atheists seem to take it for granted that they're clever enough to know if god exists.)
19. He tells us he's sure biological intelligence will be superseded by machine intelligence. (That makes no sense to me.) He talks about something called Quintelligence; some form of quantum intelligence... the size of a suitcase... out there between the galaxies. We see how desperate people are to answer the Fermi paradox. Apparently the greatest horror these people can imagine is that we are indeed unique. They will go to any length to escape this conclusion. One might wonder why. You see by this example how one need never abandon a cherished hypothesis if one doesn't want to.
20. Why should we do seti he muses. Well; he tells us it forces ust to ask the questions we should ask; eg. what is life? what is intelligence? what is the destiny of the human race?
- Should? Does he forget we're just matter in motion? This is a very weak response to his own question. If people want to play this game that's fine; but in no way should people be forced to pay taxes for such a thing. We can ask all these questions without seti.
21. He says that a quintelligence might be uninterested in anything beyond itself and so not seek us out. This can't be known of course... but it flies in the face of our interest in SETI... and presumes that these intelligences are all the same. I find that hard to believe.
Notes;
1. The eerie silence - Paul Davies; video lecture; Royal Society
Monday, April 4, 2011
Understanding Intelligent design; a guide for the confused
While ID proponents are trying hard to make their model understandable, and to clear up misconceptions people have about it, many evolutionists are trying hard to confuse the issue. They like to present false notions of ID, and to spread disinformation about it. While this is one method of winning a debate, they shouldn't expect any accolades for their tactics. While they insist creationists give a scrupulously accurate account of the evolutionary model, they show no willingness to return the favor. They might be wearing lab coats, but they argue like tobacco company lawyers.
Quotes and comments;
1. The quotes are taken from the video lecture 'Understanding Intelligent design' given in 2010 by Paul Nelson. [1.] If people really want to know what ID is, they would do better to watch this video than listen to the insults and obfuscations offered by materialists.
2. 'One of the main criticisms of ID is that it's merely god of the gaps reasoning. i.e. science can't solve x and so ID people claim this as evidence for God or for design.'
3. 'Roger Penrose, while not a theist, at least in the conventional sense, is a Platonist... in that he believes mathematical entities are real and exist in a non-material realm.'
4. Nelson uses a definition of ID that says; 'The theory of ID holds that certain features of the universe... are best explained by an intelligent cause...'
- No one, not even Dawkins, can deny that some things in the universe are the product of intelligent design. (e.g. my beer mug.) It's not a matter of design vs no design; but of what things are, or were, designed.
The key issue as I see it is this; how can we decide whether X is or was designed. I don't think ID advocates have solved this. They've demonstrated that undirected processes don't work, but they haven't given us a method we can use. (As far as I know.)
I think the closest they come is to say; 'there's no way undirected physical processes could account for X' but this is a negative approach if you will. I personally think it works quite well, but it doesn't satisfy materialists or evolutionists. They seem to feel physical processes can do anything. (With the possible exception of producing a hit song on the radio. If there are there any hit songs anymore.)
They haven't demonstrated this; but this is their claim. (I don't know why they think undirected physical processes can produce an eye but not a rap song :=}
The question is this; how can we recognize intelligence in the universe? Well; I find it easy to recognize in fellow humans (at least some of them). If I see in the world what I see in my mind (that sounds awkward) then I think I have a right to call it intelligence. Examples would be what? planning? purpose? creativity? the ability to produce something beyond inert matter? something not found in inert matter? Codes? language? the arbitrary? that which violates physical law? (e.g. the airplane)
I personally think that 'life' is evidence of intelligence, but I realize Darwinists don't.
To me birds are evidence of intelligence; i.e. the ability to fly. I think this is as much evidence for intelligence as the airplane. In a merely physical universe things fall; they do not fly. (They might explode upwards, but that's not flying; by flying I mean winged flight.) This is a violation of the law of gravity if you will. It's not 'natural' at all. A falling rock is natural, not a bird riding an updraft. (By natural I mean physical.)
Atheists claim that 'supernatural' explanations have no place in science. The trouble with this statement is that it appear to rule out human beings (supra natural) as causes, as explanations for certain events. e.g. what's the explanation for an artificial cochlear implant? It's certainly not natural; it's not the product of natural selection. It obviously has a supra natural explanation. The cause isn't physics but intelligence. [3.]
5. "The statements of science must invoke only natural things processes." - National academy of sciences
- Must? Is that a scientific concept? This definition isn't scientific, but philosophical. If only science can give us truth, this definition can't be true.
Let's look at a definition of must;
a. 'To be obliged or required by morality, law, or custom: Citizens must register in order to vote.
b. 'To be obliged; be necessarily compelled; be bound or required by physical or moral necessity, or by express command or prohibition. - Century Dictionary
- Hmm... the definition of science given above, doesn't sound very scientific to me. To say science 'must' do x or y is to posit morality law or custom as the foundation of science. Their definition has the musty smell of an old law book.
Does this definition mean there can't be any science of things and processes created by human beings? e.g. can there be no computer science? no science of medicine? no science of engineering?
Let's go way out there; let's say sometime in the future men create a planet, and fill it with biological life forms they've created in the laboratory... including intelligent bipeds. The question then is this; can there be no science on this planet?
Is man a 'natural' thing or process? Not in any ordinary sense of the term. Natural refers to physics, when used in discussions concerning science. (From McMillan; natural; existing in nature and not produced or caused by people.)
From The Skeptic's dictionary - Natural;
'Civilization is unnatural. Indoor plumbing is unnatural. Corrective lenses are unnatural. So are automobiles.
' To have a broken arm set by a physician is unnatural. To let it heal spontaneously would be natural, even if debilitating for life. Getting a medical degree is unnatural. Foraging and experimenting by trial and error would be natural, even if often lethal. Children born with no brains or other monstrous deformities are natural. Brain surgery to remove a tumor is unnatural. ' - Robert T. Carroll
- A key word in this definition is only. i.e. it has to be what we say and cannot be anything else. (The totalitarian mindset in full flower.)
Only;
'In but one manner, for but one purpose, by but one means, with but one result, etc.; [Century]
- This academy definition of science is meant to ensure a single result... i.e. it's meant to ensure the process produces a single answer, the answer the authors desire and approve of. Method is intimately tied with result. There is a purpose behind this definition. What they call 'science' has the purpose of producing results (conclusions, etc.) that they approve of, and want to propagate. There is only one way to do things; and it's our way.
This reminds me of a game; the rules for a game; e.g. the rules for billiards... but science isn't a game, it's a universal human drive... the drive of curiosity, the drive to know things, the drive to discover. There can't be rigid rules for something as grand, as wide, as deep as that.
6. Nelson tells us that we need more than natural causes and supernatural causes; we need to add a third category; that of intelligence.
7. Nelson would prefer to divide causes not into natural vs supernatural; but natural vs intelligent.
8. He repeats the famous quotation by Arthur c. Clarke ''Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Hmm.... I wonder if that applies to the 'technology' involved in the creation of man by god? i.e. is the reason the majority of scientists say they don't see evidence for design, simply the fact the 'technology' is too advanced?
9. He quotes Wallace Arthur as saying the creation of body plans isn't explained by textbook evolution.
10. He quotes Arthur as saying, "what we (evolutionists) need is some creation science (i.e. of the good kind.) ie. some way to account for the creation of body plans.
- The trouble for the materialist is that there is no way this can happen in terms of undirected physics. ie. there can't be any 'creation science' within the materialist model. They will forever be seeking for it, as life transcends the realm of physics, or the merely material.
11. He presents a case for ID using the life cycle of the Monarch butterfly; claiming it required intelligence. (Seems persuasive to me.)
12. Nelson concludes by saying that many of the unsolved problems of E. theory might be the result of asking the wrong questions. i.e. because you ask a question doesn't mean there's an answ3er you're going to like. (e.g. how did life spontaneously emerge on earth)
Notes;
1. Paul Nelson - Understanding Intelligent design [video; available free online]
Northwest Creation Network
- you can access his lecture on the 'tree of life' at the same site; excellent as well.
2. I can't promise I got each quote exactly correct; though I'm confident I'm close.
3. Supranatural; same as supernatural
'Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Supra;
A prefix of Latin origin, meaning ‘above,’ ‘beyond.’
4. One of the claims you see repeated endlessly is that creationists just don't understand evolutionary theory. Well; I hate to bring some light into the conversation, but Paul Nelson understands both biology and E. theory. (It would be nice if the Darwinists would finally drop this fallacious argument.)
5.. I wrote this post while listening to 'Beyond the Missouri sky' by Charlie Haden and Pat Metheny; so if there are any errors in it, you can blame them. It got hard to concentrate at points. (Love the cut Spiritual)
Quotes and comments;
1. The quotes are taken from the video lecture 'Understanding Intelligent design' given in 2010 by Paul Nelson. [1.] If people really want to know what ID is, they would do better to watch this video than listen to the insults and obfuscations offered by materialists.
2. 'One of the main criticisms of ID is that it's merely god of the gaps reasoning. i.e. science can't solve x and so ID people claim this as evidence for God or for design.'
3. 'Roger Penrose, while not a theist, at least in the conventional sense, is a Platonist... in that he believes mathematical entities are real and exist in a non-material realm.'
4. Nelson uses a definition of ID that says; 'The theory of ID holds that certain features of the universe... are best explained by an intelligent cause...'
- No one, not even Dawkins, can deny that some things in the universe are the product of intelligent design. (e.g. my beer mug.) It's not a matter of design vs no design; but of what things are, or were, designed.
The key issue as I see it is this; how can we decide whether X is or was designed. I don't think ID advocates have solved this. They've demonstrated that undirected processes don't work, but they haven't given us a method we can use. (As far as I know.)
I think the closest they come is to say; 'there's no way undirected physical processes could account for X' but this is a negative approach if you will. I personally think it works quite well, but it doesn't satisfy materialists or evolutionists. They seem to feel physical processes can do anything. (With the possible exception of producing a hit song on the radio. If there are there any hit songs anymore.)
They haven't demonstrated this; but this is their claim. (I don't know why they think undirected physical processes can produce an eye but not a rap song :=}
The question is this; how can we recognize intelligence in the universe? Well; I find it easy to recognize in fellow humans (at least some of them). If I see in the world what I see in my mind (that sounds awkward) then I think I have a right to call it intelligence. Examples would be what? planning? purpose? creativity? the ability to produce something beyond inert matter? something not found in inert matter? Codes? language? the arbitrary? that which violates physical law? (e.g. the airplane)
I personally think that 'life' is evidence of intelligence, but I realize Darwinists don't.
To me birds are evidence of intelligence; i.e. the ability to fly. I think this is as much evidence for intelligence as the airplane. In a merely physical universe things fall; they do not fly. (They might explode upwards, but that's not flying; by flying I mean winged flight.) This is a violation of the law of gravity if you will. It's not 'natural' at all. A falling rock is natural, not a bird riding an updraft. (By natural I mean physical.)
Atheists claim that 'supernatural' explanations have no place in science. The trouble with this statement is that it appear to rule out human beings (supra natural) as causes, as explanations for certain events. e.g. what's the explanation for an artificial cochlear implant? It's certainly not natural; it's not the product of natural selection. It obviously has a supra natural explanation. The cause isn't physics but intelligence. [3.]
5. "The statements of science must invoke only natural things processes." - National academy of sciences
- Must? Is that a scientific concept? This definition isn't scientific, but philosophical. If only science can give us truth, this definition can't be true.
Let's look at a definition of must;
a. 'To be obliged or required by morality, law, or custom: Citizens must register in order to vote.
b. 'To be obliged; be necessarily compelled; be bound or required by physical or moral necessity, or by express command or prohibition. - Century Dictionary
- Hmm... the definition of science given above, doesn't sound very scientific to me. To say science 'must' do x or y is to posit morality law or custom as the foundation of science. Their definition has the musty smell of an old law book.
Does this definition mean there can't be any science of things and processes created by human beings? e.g. can there be no computer science? no science of medicine? no science of engineering?
Let's go way out there; let's say sometime in the future men create a planet, and fill it with biological life forms they've created in the laboratory... including intelligent bipeds. The question then is this; can there be no science on this planet?
Is man a 'natural' thing or process? Not in any ordinary sense of the term. Natural refers to physics, when used in discussions concerning science. (From McMillan; natural; existing in nature and not produced or caused by people.)
From The Skeptic's dictionary - Natural;
'Civilization is unnatural. Indoor plumbing is unnatural. Corrective lenses are unnatural. So are automobiles.
' To have a broken arm set by a physician is unnatural. To let it heal spontaneously would be natural, even if debilitating for life. Getting a medical degree is unnatural. Foraging and experimenting by trial and error would be natural, even if often lethal. Children born with no brains or other monstrous deformities are natural. Brain surgery to remove a tumor is unnatural. ' - Robert T. Carroll
- A key word in this definition is only. i.e. it has to be what we say and cannot be anything else. (The totalitarian mindset in full flower.)
Only;
'In but one manner, for but one purpose, by but one means, with but one result, etc.; [Century]
- This academy definition of science is meant to ensure a single result... i.e. it's meant to ensure the process produces a single answer, the answer the authors desire and approve of. Method is intimately tied with result. There is a purpose behind this definition. What they call 'science' has the purpose of producing results (conclusions, etc.) that they approve of, and want to propagate. There is only one way to do things; and it's our way.
This reminds me of a game; the rules for a game; e.g. the rules for billiards... but science isn't a game, it's a universal human drive... the drive of curiosity, the drive to know things, the drive to discover. There can't be rigid rules for something as grand, as wide, as deep as that.
6. Nelson tells us that we need more than natural causes and supernatural causes; we need to add a third category; that of intelligence.
7. Nelson would prefer to divide causes not into natural vs supernatural; but natural vs intelligent.
8. He repeats the famous quotation by Arthur c. Clarke ''Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Hmm.... I wonder if that applies to the 'technology' involved in the creation of man by god? i.e. is the reason the majority of scientists say they don't see evidence for design, simply the fact the 'technology' is too advanced?
9. He quotes Wallace Arthur as saying the creation of body plans isn't explained by textbook evolution.
10. He quotes Arthur as saying, "what we (evolutionists) need is some creation science (i.e. of the good kind.) ie. some way to account for the creation of body plans.
- The trouble for the materialist is that there is no way this can happen in terms of undirected physics. ie. there can't be any 'creation science' within the materialist model. They will forever be seeking for it, as life transcends the realm of physics, or the merely material.
11. He presents a case for ID using the life cycle of the Monarch butterfly; claiming it required intelligence. (Seems persuasive to me.)
12. Nelson concludes by saying that many of the unsolved problems of E. theory might be the result of asking the wrong questions. i.e. because you ask a question doesn't mean there's an answ3er you're going to like. (e.g. how did life spontaneously emerge on earth)
Notes;
1. Paul Nelson - Understanding Intelligent design [video; available free online]
Northwest Creation Network
- you can access his lecture on the 'tree of life' at the same site; excellent as well.
2. I can't promise I got each quote exactly correct; though I'm confident I'm close.
3. Supranatural; same as supernatural
'Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Supra;
A prefix of Latin origin, meaning ‘above,’ ‘beyond.’
4. One of the claims you see repeated endlessly is that creationists just don't understand evolutionary theory. Well; I hate to bring some light into the conversation, but Paul Nelson understands both biology and E. theory. (It would be nice if the Darwinists would finally drop this fallacious argument.)
5.. I wrote this post while listening to 'Beyond the Missouri sky' by Charlie Haden and Pat Metheny; so if there are any errors in it, you can blame them. It got hard to concentrate at points. (Love the cut Spiritual)
Saturday, April 2, 2011
The fallacy of Naturalism
I've just finished watching a couple videos (on the general topic of creation) by John Byl. He's one of my favorite creationist writers and speakers. I want to comment briefly on the videos, and encourage you to watch them.
Quotes and comments;
1. The videos in question are available online (for free or for sale) at Northwest Creation Network. The first is Cosmology; explaining the universe; and the second is War of the worldviews; Christianity vs Naturalism [1.]
2. War of the worldviews
- I'll provide some quotes by Byl (and others) and make a few comments.
- It's interesting that that great favorite of atheists Nietzsche said that science has killed god... but he also said science has killed truth.
- Abraham Kuyper said it's not a matter of faith vs science, but of two (opposing) scientific systems... each having its own faith.
- 'The origins debate is not about facts, but about their proper interpretation.'
- 'It's not science vs Christianity, but naturalistic explanations vs christian explanations.'
- 'A worldview (to be respectable) ought to be livable.' (This is something materialism is not.
- "Free will simply doesn't not exist, evolution cannot produce a being that is truly able to make choices." - William Provine
I'm tempted to agree with that. I don't think 'evolution' could produce such a being. I see this as evidence for creation.
Notice that Provine says free will simply does not exist. Simply? Well, let's leave that aside. You see where a consistent materialism gets you; it paints you into a corner called absurdity. Does anyone think prof. Provine doesn't think he has any free choice? Did he have no choice but to make that statement? We might wonder why other humans, being mere matter in motion, make the opposite statement.
If human beings have no free will, why are atheists continually attacking people for holding to superstitous beliefs? ie. if they have no free will what good will it do to harangue them, and to challenge them to change? This makes no sense to me. (This means that fellows like Provine and Dawkins shouldn't pride themselves on being progressive, fearless, etc. as they had no choice in what they've done.)
If we have no free will how do we know any statement is true? ie. we're no free to agree or disagree with X, and our conclusions about it are beyond our control. They aren't true or false; they just are.
"The universe cares nothing for us,'' says Provine.
- I agree. Inert matter can't care about anything or anyone. According to the Bible, it's God who cares. (If the universe were mere matter in motion there could not be caring of any kind... and one wonders why Provine has such a word in his vocabulary, and why he employs it. I suppose devising a grammar consistent with materialism would be impossible)
The materialist claims that only natural causes exist. One wonders how he knows a cause is natural or not. (Maybe causes only appear to be natural.) There is no way I know of to prove causes are natural. (ie. not created) There is no way to prove the universe (and all in it) weren't created.
According to Roger Penrose (Shadows of the Mind) there are three worlds (and three mysteries). There's the word of matter; the world of ideas; the world of absolute truth (which he apparently equates with mathematics?). The mystery or mysteries, is how we get from one world to the other.
''Given our best scientific theories, factors beyond our control produce all our actions, we are not therefore morally responsible for them." - Derk Pereboom (Living without free will)
- How can he possibly know this? If there is no free will, there is no freedom when it comes to reasoning... therefore we can't possibly know if a statement is true or false. One wonders why the word moral is in his vocabulary. (If no one is responsible why do some people get tenure?) Given his own wview, his claim is meaningless.
If there is no free will, how does he know which theories are the best? He has no choice in his decision... therefore he's not making a choice between alternatives.
"We are machines made by DNA, whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA. That is exactly what we are for. It is every living object's sole reason for living." - Dawkins/1994
- This must surely be one of the stupidest statements ever made. How this sad raver can be so popular is beyond me. I can only explain it by thinking people so love the Christian bashing he does that they forgive or forget radical statements such as this. He has no right to speak of humans as machines; as machines are made by intelligent agents. Purpose? There can be no purpose in the hell of a u. he postulates.
Exactly? What a farce. Apparently this fool thinks his wild speculations have the same validity as mathematics. This is what we are for he says. This is gibberish; there is no teleology in his crackpot universe.... nor can there be. Reason for living? There could be no reason for living in the pulp fiction universe he writes about.
'According to the Westminster Confession; the purpose of man is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.'
Notes;
1. Northwest Creation Network - videos
2. It's interesting to me that people like Peter Atkins like to attack theism... but say virtually nothing about the post modernists. They like to pretend their fellow tenured elite don't even exist... as if they haven't made any arguments against this positivist idea that 'science' provides us with absolute truth.
Quotes and comments;
1. The videos in question are available online (for free or for sale) at Northwest Creation Network. The first is Cosmology; explaining the universe; and the second is War of the worldviews; Christianity vs Naturalism [1.]
2. War of the worldviews
- I'll provide some quotes by Byl (and others) and make a few comments.
- It's interesting that that great favorite of atheists Nietzsche said that science has killed god... but he also said science has killed truth.
- Abraham Kuyper said it's not a matter of faith vs science, but of two (opposing) scientific systems... each having its own faith.
- 'The origins debate is not about facts, but about their proper interpretation.'
- 'It's not science vs Christianity, but naturalistic explanations vs christian explanations.'
- 'A worldview (to be respectable) ought to be livable.' (This is something materialism is not.
- "Free will simply doesn't not exist, evolution cannot produce a being that is truly able to make choices." - William Provine
I'm tempted to agree with that. I don't think 'evolution' could produce such a being. I see this as evidence for creation.
Notice that Provine says free will simply does not exist. Simply? Well, let's leave that aside. You see where a consistent materialism gets you; it paints you into a corner called absurdity. Does anyone think prof. Provine doesn't think he has any free choice? Did he have no choice but to make that statement? We might wonder why other humans, being mere matter in motion, make the opposite statement.
If human beings have no free will, why are atheists continually attacking people for holding to superstitous beliefs? ie. if they have no free will what good will it do to harangue them, and to challenge them to change? This makes no sense to me. (This means that fellows like Provine and Dawkins shouldn't pride themselves on being progressive, fearless, etc. as they had no choice in what they've done.)
If we have no free will how do we know any statement is true? ie. we're no free to agree or disagree with X, and our conclusions about it are beyond our control. They aren't true or false; they just are.
"The universe cares nothing for us,'' says Provine.
- I agree. Inert matter can't care about anything or anyone. According to the Bible, it's God who cares. (If the universe were mere matter in motion there could not be caring of any kind... and one wonders why Provine has such a word in his vocabulary, and why he employs it. I suppose devising a grammar consistent with materialism would be impossible)
The materialist claims that only natural causes exist. One wonders how he knows a cause is natural or not. (Maybe causes only appear to be natural.) There is no way I know of to prove causes are natural. (ie. not created) There is no way to prove the universe (and all in it) weren't created.
According to Roger Penrose (Shadows of the Mind) there are three worlds (and three mysteries). There's the word of matter; the world of ideas; the world of absolute truth (which he apparently equates with mathematics?). The mystery or mysteries, is how we get from one world to the other.
''Given our best scientific theories, factors beyond our control produce all our actions, we are not therefore morally responsible for them." - Derk Pereboom (Living without free will)
- How can he possibly know this? If there is no free will, there is no freedom when it comes to reasoning... therefore we can't possibly know if a statement is true or false. One wonders why the word moral is in his vocabulary. (If no one is responsible why do some people get tenure?) Given his own wview, his claim is meaningless.
If there is no free will, how does he know which theories are the best? He has no choice in his decision... therefore he's not making a choice between alternatives.
"We are machines made by DNA, whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA. That is exactly what we are for. It is every living object's sole reason for living." - Dawkins/1994
- This must surely be one of the stupidest statements ever made. How this sad raver can be so popular is beyond me. I can only explain it by thinking people so love the Christian bashing he does that they forgive or forget radical statements such as this. He has no right to speak of humans as machines; as machines are made by intelligent agents. Purpose? There can be no purpose in the hell of a u. he postulates.
Exactly? What a farce. Apparently this fool thinks his wild speculations have the same validity as mathematics. This is what we are for he says. This is gibberish; there is no teleology in his crackpot universe.... nor can there be. Reason for living? There could be no reason for living in the pulp fiction universe he writes about.
'According to the Westminster Confession; the purpose of man is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.'
Notes;
1. Northwest Creation Network - videos
2. It's interesting to me that people like Peter Atkins like to attack theism... but say virtually nothing about the post modernists. They like to pretend their fellow tenured elite don't even exist... as if they haven't made any arguments against this positivist idea that 'science' provides us with absolute truth.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Does science have all the questions?
Books on the so called conflict between religion and science seem quite popular recently. I want to make a few comments on a recent entry by Peter Atkins.; On Being: A Scientist's Exploration of the Great Questions of Existence.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Peter Atkins pieces together all that science has discovered on these big questions, and finds the evidence unquestionable.
"Every real question, like, where did the universe come from, where is it going, and how is it getting there - there is nothing of that nature that science cannot illuminate," he says. [1.]
- Every 'real' question? Who is Atkins to dictate what is a 'real' or unreal question? The idea that the only real questions are ones about physical reality is more than a little strange! (Even for an academic.)
2. 'As scientists discover increasing amounts about life, the universe and everything, are we approaching a point where we can rely on science alone to answer all of life's big questions?' [1.]
- Before we can decide whether science has all the answers, we would have to know whether or not it has asked all the questions. Since we can't know that, I don't see how 'science' can have all the answers.
Can science answer all questions? Before we can answer we have to know what this 'science' is. I doubt that there is any such thing. If by science he means a description of the physical world, I would deny that observational, empirical science can answer all questions. The main function of science is to describe the universe we live in. It's a fabrication (fantasy if you will) to say we can deduce moral ideals, etc. from this. (e.g. Sam Harris) As the favorite philosopher of most atheists (David Hume) put it; you can't go from what is, to what should be. [3.]
2. 'Driven by an undimmable optimism, he says, scientists are probing everywhere, leaving no stone unturned. What they find are facts, facts and more facts, with consequences that we cannot ignore.'
- Driven by optimism? or by government grants ?
What scientists find are facts he says. He needs to read a little philosophy (or a little more as the case may be). All so called facts are limited by our partial knowledge of the universe, by our philosophical bias, by who we are as creatures... by what level we think reality exists at, and by much more. All these factors 'conspire' to make 'facts' impossible.
There are no facts... what we have are ideas, opinions, theories, and speculations. (A weaker version of this statement is that there are very few facts; if by fact we mean an absolute knowledge of reality.)
3. Science, he says, has all the evidence it needs that the universe is "entirely without purpose": you are born an intelligent animal with no soul or spirit and there is nothing left alive after the body has died.'
- I find people like Atkins dreary and boring. He apparently believes in a laundered version of logical positivism... and that his ego is as wide, vast and deep as the universe.
There is no such thing as science; this is a reification. People we call scientists engage in various activities, but there is no independent entity called science. Furthermore, a thing has no needs. Atkins may have, but 'science' does not.
To know the 'universe' was entirely without purpose he'd have to know everything about everything in the universe. This claim is comical at best.
To say there is no soul or spirit we have to know what is meant by these things, and how they're defined. Atkins seems to believe his definitionss of things are the only ones, and that they're somehow absolute. (He just defines things out of existence and then claims they don't exist. This is a schoolboy's game.)
We can't know what happens after we die. Only if the universe were merely as clever as Atkins, would his opinions be conclusive. He seems to have forgotten his Shakespeare. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." [2.]
ie. he can't know what might exist outside his limited consciousness.
4. "If science comes up with facts that are, let's call it, true… even though they are unsettling, they have to be accepted," he says.
- Have to be accepted? If we are mere animals why do we have to accept anything. Human history would seem to be one of not accepting things. If we are mere matter in motion what sense does it make to say we 'have' to do anything? If all is matter in motion, there is no freedom, and to talk of moral commands is nonsensical.
If all is matter in motion nothing is true or false... it just is. (Atkins doesn't even take his own worldview seriously... so why should anyone else.)
5. "I think that science exposes the wonder of the world as it is. You don't need fantasies to build that sense of wonder. Science is true glory, whereas religion is fabricated glory."
- Science is true glory? With due respect... that's just gibberish. If all is matter in motion there is no glory. Glory is a theistic word, and refers to God and his 'wondrous' creation.
There is no mythological hero called science. Do scientists uncover wondrous things?
Indubitably. They uncover the glories of God's creation.
Atkins refers to 'religion' as a fantasy. In my opinion, the word religion is obsolete. It needs to be replaced with the more objective term worldview. (I'd wager that parts of everyone's worldview are false.)
6. "I'm quite happy for people to take false comfort, but you've got to realize it's false comfort," he says.
- This is more gibberish. There's no comfort in X, if you know it's false. It's too bad he can't be honest. He's obviously not happy that people take 'false comfort' at all.
Notes;
1. Does science have all the answers? By Tom Colls [Transcript of BBC radio program]
- my remarks in this post are based on the interview with Atkins.
2. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE / Hamlet Act 1. Scene V abt. 1601
3. The Is-ought problem;
'In meta-ethics, the is-ought problem was articulated by David Hume (Scottish philosopher and historian, 1711–1776), who noted that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. However, Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and it is not obvious how we can get from making descriptive statements to prescriptive. - Wikipedia
4. Atkins apparently believes in a laundered version of logical positivism... and that his ego is as wide, vast and deep as the universe.
5. ''Mary Midgley, whose book The Myths We Live By is being re-published as a Routledge Classic this month, thinks Professor Atkins's views demonstrate the "imperialistic" attitude science has developed.' [from transcipt]
6. 'The religious notions of soul and spirit, of life everlasting and the final judgement, are nothing more, he says, than a "fantasy".
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Peter Atkins pieces together all that science has discovered on these big questions, and finds the evidence unquestionable.
"Every real question, like, where did the universe come from, where is it going, and how is it getting there - there is nothing of that nature that science cannot illuminate," he says. [1.]
- Every 'real' question? Who is Atkins to dictate what is a 'real' or unreal question? The idea that the only real questions are ones about physical reality is more than a little strange! (Even for an academic.)
2. 'As scientists discover increasing amounts about life, the universe and everything, are we approaching a point where we can rely on science alone to answer all of life's big questions?' [1.]
- Before we can decide whether science has all the answers, we would have to know whether or not it has asked all the questions. Since we can't know that, I don't see how 'science' can have all the answers.
Can science answer all questions? Before we can answer we have to know what this 'science' is. I doubt that there is any such thing. If by science he means a description of the physical world, I would deny that observational, empirical science can answer all questions. The main function of science is to describe the universe we live in. It's a fabrication (fantasy if you will) to say we can deduce moral ideals, etc. from this. (e.g. Sam Harris) As the favorite philosopher of most atheists (David Hume) put it; you can't go from what is, to what should be. [3.]
2. 'Driven by an undimmable optimism, he says, scientists are probing everywhere, leaving no stone unturned. What they find are facts, facts and more facts, with consequences that we cannot ignore.'
- Driven by optimism? or by government grants ?
What scientists find are facts he says. He needs to read a little philosophy (or a little more as the case may be). All so called facts are limited by our partial knowledge of the universe, by our philosophical bias, by who we are as creatures... by what level we think reality exists at, and by much more. All these factors 'conspire' to make 'facts' impossible.
There are no facts... what we have are ideas, opinions, theories, and speculations. (A weaker version of this statement is that there are very few facts; if by fact we mean an absolute knowledge of reality.)
3. Science, he says, has all the evidence it needs that the universe is "entirely without purpose": you are born an intelligent animal with no soul or spirit and there is nothing left alive after the body has died.'
- I find people like Atkins dreary and boring. He apparently believes in a laundered version of logical positivism... and that his ego is as wide, vast and deep as the universe.
There is no such thing as science; this is a reification. People we call scientists engage in various activities, but there is no independent entity called science. Furthermore, a thing has no needs. Atkins may have, but 'science' does not.
To know the 'universe' was entirely without purpose he'd have to know everything about everything in the universe. This claim is comical at best.
To say there is no soul or spirit we have to know what is meant by these things, and how they're defined. Atkins seems to believe his definitionss of things are the only ones, and that they're somehow absolute. (He just defines things out of existence and then claims they don't exist. This is a schoolboy's game.)
We can't know what happens after we die. Only if the universe were merely as clever as Atkins, would his opinions be conclusive. He seems to have forgotten his Shakespeare. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." [2.]
ie. he can't know what might exist outside his limited consciousness.
4. "If science comes up with facts that are, let's call it, true… even though they are unsettling, they have to be accepted," he says.
- Have to be accepted? If we are mere animals why do we have to accept anything. Human history would seem to be one of not accepting things. If we are mere matter in motion what sense does it make to say we 'have' to do anything? If all is matter in motion, there is no freedom, and to talk of moral commands is nonsensical.
If all is matter in motion nothing is true or false... it just is. (Atkins doesn't even take his own worldview seriously... so why should anyone else.)
5. "I think that science exposes the wonder of the world as it is. You don't need fantasies to build that sense of wonder. Science is true glory, whereas religion is fabricated glory."
- Science is true glory? With due respect... that's just gibberish. If all is matter in motion there is no glory. Glory is a theistic word, and refers to God and his 'wondrous' creation.
There is no mythological hero called science. Do scientists uncover wondrous things?
Indubitably. They uncover the glories of God's creation.
Atkins refers to 'religion' as a fantasy. In my opinion, the word religion is obsolete. It needs to be replaced with the more objective term worldview. (I'd wager that parts of everyone's worldview are false.)
6. "I'm quite happy for people to take false comfort, but you've got to realize it's false comfort," he says.
- This is more gibberish. There's no comfort in X, if you know it's false. It's too bad he can't be honest. He's obviously not happy that people take 'false comfort' at all.
Notes;
1. Does science have all the answers? By Tom Colls [Transcript of BBC radio program]
- my remarks in this post are based on the interview with Atkins.
2. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE / Hamlet Act 1. Scene V abt. 1601
3. The Is-ought problem;
'In meta-ethics, the is-ought problem was articulated by David Hume (Scottish philosopher and historian, 1711–1776), who noted that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. However, Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and it is not obvious how we can get from making descriptive statements to prescriptive. - Wikipedia
4. Atkins apparently believes in a laundered version of logical positivism... and that his ego is as wide, vast and deep as the universe.
5. ''Mary Midgley, whose book The Myths We Live By is being re-published as a Routledge Classic this month, thinks Professor Atkins's views demonstrate the "imperialistic" attitude science has developed.' [from transcipt]
6. 'The religious notions of soul and spirit, of life everlasting and the final judgement, are nothing more, he says, than a "fantasy".
Thursday, March 31, 2011
The Earth sciences and Time Inflation
I get suspicious when seemingly impossible events aren't questioned. In my years of studying the origins question I've come across numerous incidents where organisms were reported to have survived millions of years without decomposing. Here's another example.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'When in Quttinirpaaq National Park in the Canadian Arctic, Ohio State University Earth scientist Joel Barker initially spotted some pieces of dead trees scattered on the barren ground near a glacier. Immediately, he knew he had found something akin to a looking glass peering into the Arctic's ecological past. [1.]
2. 'The Hazen Plateau on Ellesmere Island, a polar desert where winter temperatures can currently dip down to 50 below zero, is currently too cold and dry to support forests; the only living trees that now dot the park's desolate landscape are dwarf willows. Therefore, the pieces of wood must have come from trees that lived millions of years ago, when the Arctic was still warm enough to support forests.'
- Therefore?
As the imagined inflation that happened shortly after the big bang violates all we know about physics... so this story violates what we know about chemistry and decomposition. We know that wood doesn't last even remotely close to millions of years. Don't we?
What's so interesting to me about this story is that no one (apparently) even wondered how this was possible. If they did it's not mentioned in the article. Isn't 'observing' an impossibility interesting? You'd think so. (Maybe people have become so used to seeing the impossible, it's no longer a big deal. I wonder how long it will take for scientists to start questioning these dates.
3. 'The trees probably died in a landslide, as indicated by deposits still present on surrounding material. The killing landslide toppled and engulfed the trees quickly enough to seal them from oxygen and to prevent water from circulating through. The result: The remaining pieces of dead trees are now in a perfectly preserved mummified state, with much of their organic material still intact.'
4. 'In fact, the organic material in the dead trees is so well preserved that the wood can still burn, and even the most delicate tree structures, such as leaves, are present. "The dead trees look just like the dried-out dead wood lying outside now," said Barker.
- Don't forget that the temperature in the area (if this is truly where the trees came from) was much warmer when the trees were living. So how come so little decomposition in millions of years? Apparently there are things you can't question. (Not if you want a job or grant money at any rate.)
Everywhere you go you see that evolutionists need huge amounts of time to even begin to make the theory work. This means banks of time have to be manufactured. (In a similar way the inflation theory was invented to save Big Bang cosmology.) When all this manufactured time implodes all the sciences will have to be radically reworked. It would appear that no one even wants to contemplate such a thing... but if I'm right, such a 'revolution' is in the works. (Cue the music; "Time, the final frontier...'')
Not in my life time I don't suppose.
Notes;
1. Back to the future with mummified trees; Physorg March 17, 2011 By Lily Whiteman
2. Definition of organic matter;
'Organic matter (or organic material) is matter that has come from a once-living organism; is capable of decay, or the product of decay; or is composed of organic compounds. The definition of organic matter varies upon the subject it is being used for.
3. In my opinion the long ages our evolutionary textbooks present us with is just as imaginary as Darwin's tree of life; both were manufactured by theory and speculation. I predict that one day they'll both go up in smoke.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'When in Quttinirpaaq National Park in the Canadian Arctic, Ohio State University Earth scientist Joel Barker initially spotted some pieces of dead trees scattered on the barren ground near a glacier. Immediately, he knew he had found something akin to a looking glass peering into the Arctic's ecological past. [1.]
2. 'The Hazen Plateau on Ellesmere Island, a polar desert where winter temperatures can currently dip down to 50 below zero, is currently too cold and dry to support forests; the only living trees that now dot the park's desolate landscape are dwarf willows. Therefore, the pieces of wood must have come from trees that lived millions of years ago, when the Arctic was still warm enough to support forests.'
- Therefore?
As the imagined inflation that happened shortly after the big bang violates all we know about physics... so this story violates what we know about chemistry and decomposition. We know that wood doesn't last even remotely close to millions of years. Don't we?
What's so interesting to me about this story is that no one (apparently) even wondered how this was possible. If they did it's not mentioned in the article. Isn't 'observing' an impossibility interesting? You'd think so. (Maybe people have become so used to seeing the impossible, it's no longer a big deal. I wonder how long it will take for scientists to start questioning these dates.
3. 'The trees probably died in a landslide, as indicated by deposits still present on surrounding material. The killing landslide toppled and engulfed the trees quickly enough to seal them from oxygen and to prevent water from circulating through. The result: The remaining pieces of dead trees are now in a perfectly preserved mummified state, with much of their organic material still intact.'
4. 'In fact, the organic material in the dead trees is so well preserved that the wood can still burn, and even the most delicate tree structures, such as leaves, are present. "The dead trees look just like the dried-out dead wood lying outside now," said Barker.
- Don't forget that the temperature in the area (if this is truly where the trees came from) was much warmer when the trees were living. So how come so little decomposition in millions of years? Apparently there are things you can't question. (Not if you want a job or grant money at any rate.)
Everywhere you go you see that evolutionists need huge amounts of time to even begin to make the theory work. This means banks of time have to be manufactured. (In a similar way the inflation theory was invented to save Big Bang cosmology.) When all this manufactured time implodes all the sciences will have to be radically reworked. It would appear that no one even wants to contemplate such a thing... but if I'm right, such a 'revolution' is in the works. (Cue the music; "Time, the final frontier...'')
Not in my life time I don't suppose.
Notes;
1. Back to the future with mummified trees; Physorg March 17, 2011 By Lily Whiteman
2. Definition of organic matter;
'Organic matter (or organic material) is matter that has come from a once-living organism; is capable of decay, or the product of decay; or is composed of organic compounds. The definition of organic matter varies upon the subject it is being used for.
3. In my opinion the long ages our evolutionary textbooks present us with is just as imaginary as Darwin's tree of life; both were manufactured by theory and speculation. I predict that one day they'll both go up in smoke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)