Evolution

[dsvochak]

Perhaps I'm denser than usual today because I was up late last night watching Paul Nelson from the Discovery Institute and Kenneth Miller of Brown University discussing "Science, Religion and Intelligent Design" on cSpan2, but I don't understand how the "Muddy Waters" article referenced by DaveO is "...a concise answer" to the Ocam's razor issue raised by Ed Gibbs.

It appears from the article that we're once again back to "...one of the world's leading information scientists, Dr. Werner Gitt".

For an in depth discussion of information theory as it relates to this debate see

http://home.mira.net/~reynella/debate/informat.htm

A caveat. This discussion is not something that one looks at for five minutes and understands. As my undergraduate degree is in Communication, which is a discipline that arose from Shannon & Weaver's 1949 text "The Mathematical Theory of Communication", I unfortunately have a basic understanding of the concepts but nowhere close to the mathematics required for a complete understanding.

One quote from the introduction to the article on Classical Information Theory:

"Information Theory, sometimes referred to as Classical Information Theory as opposed to Algorithmic Information Theory, provides a mathematical model for communication. Though Shannon was principally concerned with the problem of electronic communications, the theory has much broader applicability. Communication occurs whenever things are copied or moved from one place and/or time to another.

This article briefly describes the main concepts of Shannon's theory. The mathematical proofs are readily available in many sources, including the Internet links on this page."

Whether one believes evolution or intelligent design, I think we can all agree that mathematics is exact. Classical information theory "...provides a mathematical model for communication" which is susceptible to "mathematical proofs".

The main difficulty with "Muddy Waters", Dr. Gitt and the others referenced in the information theory discussion referenced is "Gitt describes his principles as "empirical", yet the data is not provided to back this up. Similarly, he proposes fourteen "theorems", yet fails to demonstrate them. Shannon, in contrast, offers the math to back up his theorems. It is difficult to see how Gitt's "empirical principles" and "theorems" are anything but arbitrary assertions."

I, for one, would be much more comfortable with the extension or revisions to Shannon's theories proposed by "information theory intelligent designers" if the math "...backed up [the] theorems"

[daeojkim]

The only way that would not be the case is if the entire genetic code was a complete encyclopedia as it were, with different pieces pulled out depending on the living thing's necessity for being. This would require some sort of super organism at the outset of creation containing all the genes necessary for all living things. What's the likelyhood of that? Would a Ginkgo tree have the genes for an electric eel or a human being? These genes only being turned off?

All you evolution purists - how do you get a wealth of useful information out of chaos? If you took a supercomputer to randomly piece ones and zeros together, how much useful code would emerge? Would any of it be useful at all? Could you ever end up with Windows XP? The genetic code is not unlike computer code (1's and 0's) in that it is comprised of an all important sequence of a very few elements (5 nucleobases: C,G,A,T,& U). Even though the elements are few, look at the complex outcome in the diversity of life.

So, which supercomputer is working on the genetic code?

Gomjabbar,

if you can get a hold of Discover magazine Feb 2005 issue there is an interesting article that may answer your question of how can a random 0 & 1's can eventually end up as a useful code.

http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-05/cover/
Title of article is "Testing Darwin".

JK

[dsvochak]

daeojkim wrote:

Gomjabbar,

if you can get a hold of Discover magazine Feb 2005 issue there is an interesting article that may answer your question of how can a random 0 & 1's can eventually end up as a useful code.

http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-05/cover/
Title of article is "Testing Darwin".

Or you can to to http://devolab.cse.msu.edu/

and get the article for free, along with a lot more information about The MSU Digital Evolution Laboratory

[egibbs]

The term used allows for the thought that each “day” could have been thousands of years in length.

Or Billions. Or minutes. See the Wikipedia entry for "Last Thursdains," a group that professes the belief that the world was created last Thursday, with all of the evidence of longer existence (including light from stars billions of light years away) created at the same moment. There is also a rival sect known as the "Last Wednesdains."

As I said - once you dispense with the requirement that a theory be testable, anything goes. There really is no way to prove that the universe was not created last Thursday - and in fact there is hidden in the laws of thermodynamics some good reason to believe that it WAS.

As we all know, entropy increases - but most people don't realize that the statistical basis for that "Law" is time symetric.

That is, it is much more likely (probabilistically speaking) that the universe had more entropy in the past rather than less. In fact, the probability that the far distant past had much less entropy than the present is almost vanishingly small. Therefore the most likely explanation for the present state of the universe just might be that it is the result of a statistical fluke last Thursday which created everything including the record of a distant past.

Some of us might suspect that there are things we don't understand yet about the workings of statistical thermodynamics, and that once we understand them the universe will make more sense. But others will say that we can never understand those things because God is responsible, end of discussion. The problem is that for a very long time, every time they say that some wise guy comes along with a testable theory that works.

Ed Gibbs

[GomJabbar]

But others will say that we can never understand those things because God is responsible, end of discussion.

I for one never made any such remark. Instead I am seeing many say: Evolution is responsible, end of discussion.

Understanding increases all the time. Who knows what knowledge will be available to mankind in the future. I do say however that we will likely never know it all (although I am sure there are some know-it-alls who disagree ). There will always be something new to explore and understand.

[AlphaKilo470]

What I personally am waiting for is to see someone in this argument debate the conflicts between evolution and creationism. What are the conflicts, where are they and how.

If we could get these two things established, I think it'd really open up alot more insight for this argument.

[GomJabbar]

if you can get a hold of Discover magazine Feb 2005 issue there is an interesting article that may answer your question of how can a random 0 & 1's can eventually end up as a useful code.

http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-05/cover/
Title of article is "Testing Darwin".

Or you can to to http://devolab.cse.msu.edu/

and get the article for free, along with a lot more information about The MSU Digital Evolution Laboratory

Ok, I did that. My primary rebuttal to "random 0 & 1's can eventually end up as a useful code" is that the computer was not fed random 0 & 1's from the beginning. Rather "a software program called Avida" was put into the computer, and into this software were put "digital organisms", and these "digital organisms" were fed "numbers". The "digital organisms" were composed of "command lines". In other words, an intelligence (man) was required to get the process started.

If you took a supercomputer to randomly piece ones and zeros together, how much useful code would emerge? Would any of it be useful at all? Could you ever end up with Windows XP? The genetic code is not unlike computer code (1's and 0's) in that it is comprised of an all important sequence of a very few elements (5 nucleobases: C,G,A,T,& U). Even though the elements are few, look at the complex outcome in the diversity of life.

Some things I did note from the Discover Magazine article: "Testing Darwin".

Computer programs and DNA are both sets of instructions. Computer programs tell a computer how to process information, while DNA instructs a cell how to assemble proteins.
---------------------------
He created some primitive digital organisms and at regular intervals presented numbers to them. But each time a digital organism replicated, there was a small chance that one of it's command lines might mutate.
---------------------------
Take the building blocks of proteins--amino acids--which are found on meteorites and can also be created in the lab simply by running an electric current through ammonia and other compounds. In a lifeless setting, the most common amino acid that results is the simplest: glycine. Some slightly less simple amino acids are also common, but all the larger ones make up only a trace or are missing altogether. That's because it takes a lot of energy to make those big amino acids. "There's a limited repertoire of chemistry in the absence of life," says Dorn.
----------------------------
What if life on another planet made compounds that were radically different from amino acids? Would it alter its planet's chemistry in some simular way?

To test this idea, Dorn created a world devoid of life. Instead of containing a self-replicating program, each cell contained a random assortment of commands. All of the commands in the Avida language were present at equal levels. Here was the signature of a lifeless planet.

Then Dorn began dropping organisms into this world, like spores falling to earth.

[dsvochak]

AlphaKilo asked "What I personally am waiting for is to see someone in this argument debate the conflicts between evolution and creationism. What are the conflicts, where are they and how."

So here's my poor attempt at an answer.

It appears the there are two primary conflicts between evolution and creationism (Intelligent Design).

One is explicit and deals with root causes. Similar to Einstein's dissatisfaction with quantum mechanics, proponents of intelligent design, while often admitting that, as has been stated in this discussion previously, there exists a significant amount of evidence or "facts" supporting the theory of evolution, it's incomplete because "God does not play dice with the world". Proponents of evolution, while often admitting that, as has been stated in this discussion, there exists evidence or "facts" which are not, to date, explained by evolution, do not propose a root cause as, under the accepted methodology of science, a root cause is not a requirement of the theory.

This conflict can only be resolved in one way. The "Intelligent Designer" will have to reveal himself and say "Darwin was wrong". Until that happens, intelligent design proponents can say, "Yeah, but god does not play dice with world" and evolution proponents can reply "So what. Even you believe that Natural Selection and Evolution exist and are valid precepts."

The other primary conflict is implicit and related to the "So what?" question above.

GomJabbar recently wrote: "Ok, I did that. My primary rebuttal to "random 0 & l's can eventually end up as a useful code" is that the computer was not fed random 0 & l's from the beginning. Rather "a software program called Avida" was put into the computer, and into this software were put "digital organisms", and these "digital organisms" were fed "numbers". The "digital organisms" were composed of "command lines". In other words, an intelligence (man) was required to get the process started."

Sorry, but I have to ask:

If, Natural Selection and Evolution exist and are valid precepts, but don't answer all questions pertaining to the variety and creation of life, is it possible the answer is not "...an intelligence was required to get the process started"?

If the answer to the question is "Yes", you are, under common usage, a "scientist". If the answer to the question is "No", you are, under common usage, a "theologist".

And the conflict is exposed as whether we leave science to the scientists or open it up to the theologists. Which raises the question "Is the next step an "intelligent design" theory of quantum mechanics?"

[GomJabbar]

If, Natural Selection and Evolution exist and are valid precepts, but don't answer all questions pertaining to the variety and creation of life, is it possible the answer is not "...an intelligence was required to get the process started"?

If the answer to the question is "Yes", you are, under common usage, a "scientist". If the answer to the question is "No", you are, under common usage, a "theologist".

One of the things that 'bugs me' in this whole debate is the Black & White aspect of it. "You're either with me or agin me."

Personally I side with those in the 'shades of gray' camp. I've read false statements and theories from theologists as well as evolutionists. I take what makes sense (to me) from either side, and that's what comprises 'My theory of Evolution and Creation'.

[dsvochak]

"One of the things that 'bugs me' in this whole debate is the Black & White aspect of it. "You're either with me or agin me.""

No, it's a simple question. The comment "If the answer to the question is "Yes", you are, under common usage, a "scientist". If the answer to the question is "No", you are, under common usage, a "theologist" is granted, a little snide.

But how you answer the question: "If, Natural Selection and Evolution exist and are valid precepts, but don't answer all questions pertaining to the variety and creation of life, is it possible the answer is not "...an intelligence was required to get the process started"? " goes to the heart of whether we're debating scientific theories or theology.

So, which is it: Yes or No?

[GomJabbar]

"If, Natural Selection and Evolution exist and are valid precepts, but don't answer all questions pertaining to the variety and creation of life, is it possible the answer is not "...an intelligence was required to get the process started"? "

In my view - No. Doesn't pass the common sense test for me.

It's certainly very clear that many others do not feel this way. I think they feel that man and science can solve any problem (and know it all) given enough time. No reason to bring anyone else or any intelligent force into the picture - too messy (read: don't know how to test).

Is it possible that the theory of 'Scientific Theory' is flawed - if you catch my drift? Somewhat like the Theory of General Relativity works great until you look too close.

From link above:

General relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics; it is generally held that one of the most important unsolved problems in modern physics is the problem of obtaining a true quantum theory of gravitation.

[dsvochak]

"Is it possible that the theory of 'Scientific Theory' is flawed - if you catch my drift?"

We're just talking about different things. Which is why I raised the issue of whether an "intelligent design theory of quantum mechanics" is the next step.

While asserting it may be possible the theory of 'Scientific Theory' may be flawed, we have a quote from a discussion of the General Theory of Relativity, rather than from the discussion of Theory.

It's interesting that you choose the particular quote and ignore the previous paragraph:

"The status of general relativity is decidedly mixed. On the one hand, it is a highly successful model of gravitation and cosmology which has passed every unambiguous test that it has been subjected to so far, both observationally and experimentally. It is therefore almost universally accepted by the scientific community."

You also omit the subsequent paragraph:

"Currently, better tests of general relativity are needed. Even the most recent binary pulsar discoveries only test general relativity to the first order of deviation from Newtonian projections in the post-Newtonian parameterizations. Some way of testing second and higher order terms is needed, and may shed light on how reality differs from Einstein's theory (if it does)."

But even more interesting is this quote from the Wikipedia 'Science' entry:

"Despite popular impressions of science, it is not the goal of science to answer all questions. The goal of the physical sciences is to answer only those that pertain to physical reality. Also, science cannot possibly address all possible questions, so the choice of which questions to answer becomes important. Science does not and can not produce absolute and unquestionable truth."

As far as the answer to my original question "In my view - No. Doesn't pass the common sense test for me.", if common sense was the test of the validity of a scientific theory, physics would have stopped at what the Wikipedia article calls "classical mechanics", let alone quantum mechanics. And we probably wouldn't be having this discussion because computer science and Thinkpads would never have come into existence. There are a lot of perfectly valid scientific theories which run contrary to "common sense".

But that's not the point. I, too, have faith that there must have been some sort of "intelligent designer". I just don't believe we should try to shoehorn faith into science.

Oh, and to answer your question: If there is such a thing as a theory of 'Scientific Theory', as Ed Gibbs pointed out on 10/13, it is without a doubt "flawed"

[GomJabbar]

While asserting it may be possible the theory of 'Scientific Theory' may be flawed, we have a quote from a discussion of the General Theory of Relativity, rather than from the discussion of Theory.

It's interesting that you choose the particular quote and ignore the previous paragraph:

You also omit the subsequent paragraph:

I was trying to make an analogy not get into a discussion about the General Theory of Relativity. IE: Just as the General Theory of Relativity does not fit all situations, perhaps Scientific Theory (as it is generally practiced) does not fit all situations for getting the best answers to the questions we have. We may need to expand or look outside of Scientific Theory to get satisfactory answers. In other words, neither theory is perfect.

As far as the answer to my original question "In my view - No. Doesn't pass the common sense test for me.", if common sense was the test of the validity of a scientific theory, physics would have stopped at what the Wikipedia article calls "classical mechanics", let alone quantum mechanics. And we probably wouldn't be having this discussion because computer science and Thinkpads would never have come into existence. There are a lot of perfectly valid scientific theories which run contrary to "common sense".

By saying 'Common Sense', I was meaning what was in the realm of possibility - not necessarily that the said thing would be improbable. I can accept improbability but not impossibility.

If there is such a thing as a theory of 'Scientific Theory', as Ed Gibbs pointed out on 10/13, it is without a doubt "flawed"

I kind of forgot that Ed Gibbs wrote that. But basically I agree with Ed Gibbs on that point. I was trying to suggest that any possible Theory of Scientific Theory could be flawed. (I don't agree with the end of his post on 10/13 however).

[doppelfish]

[...] We may need to expand or look outside of Scientific Theory to get satisfactory answers. In other words, neither theory is perfect. [...]

... which is, allow me to say, the most imperfect approach I could imagine. No scientific theory is perfect - by the very definition of what a theory should be. But failure to explain all and everything is not an imperfection of a scientific therory; it's a challenge to research further.
We still teach the Bohr model in schools, a theory which explains many facts that can be observed and reproduced, hence validating the theory - but it is well known that it has shortcomings that can be explained only by extending it to the orbital model. But we don't teach the Bohr model without pointing out that it is - by todays knowledge - a simple model, which remains useful only because some math is simpler (we're talking teaching to students here), and we don't teach the orbital model as if it were the definitive answer to the question of life and everything; but do contrast this to the medieval notion of earth consisting of the "four basic elements", fire, water, earth and air.
The danger of looking outside of scientific methods to explain scientific issues by supernatural beings is not so much about a conflict between theology and science - I'm perfectly fine with folks attending church every sunday (and I did, for a while, and I didn't quit because I resent to religious feelings). The human quest for understanding and for explanations is not completely satisfied by todays knowledge, and the danger is that we use the "it's a supernatural being which we can't understand" explanation as a shorthand for, "It's supernatural! You won't get it anyway! Stop Thinking!"

Which, strangely enough, reminds me of a well-known Tradition of a certain Computer Manufacturer. If this goes on, we can't keep this discussion in the 'Off Topic' forum.

Someone say something ... please ...

sssh,
-- fish

[egibbs]

Since my name is being thrown around, I guess I'd better jump in.

Yes - the "Theory of Scientific Theory" is inherently flawed, as is any other logical construct built from Axioms and Rules.

And yes, science is messy. Very messy. There are all sorts of messes - vast areas of the landscape that no theory covers, and other areas that are covered by multiple theories that predict similar outcomes by wildly different means

Staying with Gravitation, according to Newton it is an instantaneously acting force. According to Einstein it is curvature of space. According to some of the latest attempts at unifying gravity and quantum mechanics, gravity is actually an illusion (see this month's Scientific American) produced by vibrating strings on a two dimensional manifold. And yet, if you want to plan a trajectory for a spacecraft to go to the moon, it really doesn't matter which theory you use - they all yield pretty much the same answers for puttering around the Solar System.

If, however, you believe that the planets are lights attached to transparent domes that are moved by the hand of God, you'll have a hard time getting anywhere. And if you believe that, there is no point looking further because man cannot fathom God's ways.

That was pretty much the situation before Nicolas Copernicus started throwing around the ridiculous idea that the Earth was not the center of the universe but was in fact a planet.

How ridiculous - everyone knows that planets are lights in the sky attached to transparent domes - how can the Earth be a planet? Where is the dome attached? If God is moving the Earth around the sky, why don't we feel the motion?

Copernuicus caused every bit the furor that Darwin caused, and for similar reasons - he was removing the Earth from the special place favored by God that it once inhabited, and reducing it to just a rock going around the sun.

Likewise, Evolution seems to say that we are not the living image of God, but rather just an unusually smart monkey. A lot of people have a problem with that. Get over it.

The point of science is that despite all the messiness and conflicting theories and unknowns, not to mention the fact that it makes us face our humanity, it allows us to do really cool stuff - like fly to the moon or build a Thinkpad or cure Cancer.

If we stop asking questions and just say "God did it" then progress stops, and the only fun we get to have is the occasional witch burning or inquisition.

Ed Gibbs

[DaveO]

Just a few thoughts....
I am not surprised that evolutionists cant see the forest for the trees, as they have the "establishment" and media behind them,
and their college professors that taught them CANT be wrong can they??

Reactions include, bolstering their belief, by claiming the "science" behind sending men to the moon somehow has something to do with the "philosophy" of evolution!
or claiming that the interpretations of creationists and the ID movement are a backward step in intelligence and will send us reeling back to the 12th century! Surely must be joking!
and then the ad hominem attacks begin.......

Its like the scopes trial all over again except in reverse!
Now who is "narrow-minded" ?

I firmly believe that if alternate ideas are allowed to float or sink under their own merits, their will be an increase in our understanding,
and its my hunch that molecules to man evolution will be the joke of the next generation.

A lot of long bows being drawn in some posts and frankly some are getting a bit abstract for my liking so....
Getting back to the original question.... what facts conflict with evolution.....
heres a link to a few more.... http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... ection.asp


On another note......

We have the Bible to guide us, but we only understand it partially. The Bible speaks of the 6 days of creation, and some people take this literally. Others read this, and it is enough for them to discount the Bible as fantasy. Science 'proves' (with some certainty) that this could not be the case. But there is a third understanding of this. For instance we say: "In Aristotle's day..........". This day is not 24 hours long. Likewise the reasonable understanding of this is that each creative day was not 24 hours long. It is interesting to note that the basic order of the appearance of the things created (in the Bible) agrees with the timeline that science has come up with, even though this was written centuries ago.

I include this now.......

Was all physical creation accomplished in just six days sometime within the past 6,000 to 10,000 years?

The facts disagree with such a conclusion: (1) Light from the Andromeda nebula can be seen on a clear night in the northern hemisphere. It takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth, indicating that the universe must be at least millions of years old. (2) End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.

Genesis 1:3-31 is not discussing the original creation of matter or of the heavenly bodies. It describes the preparation of the already existing earth for human habitation. This included creation of the basic kinds of vegetation, marine life, flying creatures, land animals, and the first human pair. All of this is said to have been done within a period of six “days.” However, the Hebrew word translated “day” has a variety of meanings, including ‘a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.’ (Old Testament Word Studies, Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1978, W. Wilson, p. 109) The term used allows for the thought that each “day” could have been thousands of years in length.

.... as far as this compromising and undermining of the biblical view goes...... with due respect I forward this list of links below
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... romise.asp

[egibbs]

I firmly believe that if alternate ideas are allowed to float or sink under their own merits, their will be an increase in our understanding,

Could not agree more - science is all about the flowering of ideas, testing them for corresponence to physical facts, discarding the ones that fail the test, and elevating the ones that make correct predictions about the outcome of experiments.

So how exactly would you propose that ID could float or sink on it's own merits? Is it enough that people believe it, and feel that it is the right answer? Or are you proposing that tests that could actually be performed and ID would be discarded if it failed those tests?

If you are relying on belief, then you don't have a level playing field. We'd be saying scientific theories need to correctly make testable predictions, unless they deal with ID, in which case it's enough that people believe it.

Ed Gibbs

[GomJabbar]

I have no problem with asking questions. If anyone gets an idea they think might lead to further knowledge, then go for it (But ethics also come into play. We don't want to be like Dr. Mengele). Hmmm that rhymes.

You keep saying sarcastically: "God did it" end of discussion (paraphrasing here). Even if we believe "God did it", that does not mean that we can't come to an understanding of how he "did it". Just because he "did something" doesn't mean it's beyond our realm of understanding. As science advances over the years we come to know more and more about our physical universe and how it operates. I believe that generally the Creator or God uses natural laws to achieve his ends. He sets things in motion and it generally becomes automated after that point (I'm not talking about fate here). There may be times however where a more "hands on" approach by this intelligent Creator or God is required.

[doppelfish]

[...] claiming that the interpretations of creationists and the ID movement are a backward step in intelligence and will send us reeling back to the 12th century! Surely must be joking!

Unfortunately, I only *wish* that I've been joking. Although a lot of fun can be had with the olden ways - and some seem to be serious about it - I'd rather see men and women puttering around the solar system (to borrow from egibbs) and accept that there are some things we do *not* know (yet) than to experience the dumbing-down effects of "It's all God, y'know?" where some teach that we do not *want* to know.

cheers,
-- fish

[egibbs]

You keep saying sarcastically: "God did it" end of discussion (paraphrasing here). Even if we believe "God did it", that does not mean that we can't come to an understanding of how he "did it". Just because he "did something" doesn't mean it's beyond our realm of understanding. As science advances over the years we come to know more and more about our physical universe and how it operates. I believe that generally the Creator or God uses natural laws to achieve his ends. He sets things in motion and it generally becomes automated after that point (I'm not talking about fate here). There may be times however where a more "hands on" approach by this intelligent Creator or God is required.

So we have two classes of things:

1. The observable facts - what it is, how it works, how it was done as you say, EDIT - AND the theories that correctly predict them.
2. The unmeasurable - why it was done that way, who caused it to happen, (God, FSM, Shiva, Joe down the hall).

The first category is called "science" and is taught in "science class."

The second category is called a "belief system" and is taught in other places.

Ed Gibbs

[dsvochak]

From DaveO

am not surprised that evolutionists cant see the forest for the trees, as they have the "establishment" and media behind them,
and their college professors that taught them CANT be wrong can they??

Reactions include, bolstering their belief, by claiming the "science" behind sending men to the moon somehow has something to do with the "philosophy" of evolution!
or claiming that the interpretations of creationists and the ID movement are a backward step in intelligence and will send us reeling back to the 12th century! Surely must be joking!
and then the ad hominem attacks begin.......

Its like the scopes trial all over again except in reverse!
Now who is "narrow-minded" ?

Some questions:

1) Could someone please direct me to one of the asserted "ad hominem attacks" in this thread?

2) Could someone please direct me to an assertion in these posts "...that evolutionists...CANT be wrong"? [In the 100+ posts in this thread to date, the only assertions that one's position "can't be wrong" appear to me to be coming from the proponents of intelligent design.]

3) A repeat question: Is the next step an "intelligent design" theory of quantum mechanics?

4) Could someone please explain or point out where anyone has claimed "...the 'science' behind sending men to the moon somehow has something to do with the 'philosophy' of evolution!" other than as an example or analogy of the difference between "science" and "non-science"?

5) And finally, purely for my own amusement. GomJabbar wrote:

Just as the General Theory of Relativity does not fit all situations, perhaps Scientific Theory (as it is generally practiced) does not fit all situations for getting the best answers to the questions we have. We may need to expand or look outside of Scientific Theory to get satisfactory answers

Is it possible, if the realm of science is that I quoted in my post of yesterday evening regarding the Wikipedia entry on 'Science', [which makes GomJabbar's statement correct] that the realm for getting answers to questions outside of science is religion?

[Kyocera]

I would venture to say that if science was still in the dark ages, and to many here science still is, the only place to answer unknowns would be to rationalize things with religious protocol. Since science has come a long way in the last hundred or so years it has started usurping religious explanations of our existence with more empirical evidence.

Empirical:

Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

[GomJabbar]

I would hazard to say that Science is not in the "Dark Ages", but rather it is in a period of enlightenment. As Kyocera pointed out: "science has come a long way in the last hundred or so years". However, just because something works (or is right) the first several times it is applied, that does not mean that it can be used in every instance. Sometimes alternate thinking is required. [Basically a restatement of some previous posts].

Something I remember from a Calculus class I took some many moons ago. If you start with the formula for calculating the diameter of a circle, then Integrate it, you get the formula for the area of a circle. Integrate that and you get the formula for the area of a sphere. Integrate that and you get the formula for the volume of a sphere. What happens if you integrate again? Something in another dimension? [Caveat, as I said, it's been awhile since I studied this, so please forgive and correct any errors].

So Calculus and Integration is useful in understanding the relationship of certain formulas, but there seems to be a point where it is no longer useful. [I found this very intriging when I was studying it.]

3) A repeat question: Is the next step an "intelligent design" theory of quantum mechanics?

I really don't get your point here. Quantum mechanics is an interesting subject, but really seems a side issue as far as the understanding of evolution and creation go.

[dsvochak]

GomJabbar--

You say "I really don't get your point here. Quantum mechanics is an interesting subject, but really seems a side issue as far as the understanding of evolution and creation go."

I disagree. In fact, I vehemently disagree.

Earlier you wrote "I believe that generally the Creator or God uses natural laws to achieve his ends" which is almost exactly Eintstein's reaction to quantum mechanics. And what did he do? He spent the rest of his scientific life trying to "...construct a theory of deterministic character, based on less independent suppositions than the present statistical physics..." [quoted from Einstein's letter to Herbert Samuel, October, 1937].

(And, god bless him, he failed. But he tried.)

I think there's a logical inconsistency in saying an "intelligent designer" is required to explain certain things (ie "evolution vs. creation") but not others (ie quantum mechanics, that is "determinism vs. statistics").

If an "intelligent designer" exists who "... uses natural laws to achieve his ends", I, like Einstein, can not accept that the designer would "create" beings out of atoms while making the properties of atoms subject to statistical laws with definite solutions (and quoting Einstein) "i.e laws which compel the Good Lord to throw the dice in each individual case, I find highly disagreeable."

Which is the point here. How is it possible that an "intelligent designer" created beings which are constituted of things (atoms and their parts) whose properties are, to a significant extent, random?

To be as clear as possible: The above is not an attack on DaveO, GomJabbar or anyone else espousing intelligent design. It is rather an observation that the theory may be "flawed". As I understand "intelligent design" it relies on a claim that certain things are "irreducibly complex" without either explaining, or attempting to explain the apparent random, or statistical nature of the physical constituents (atoms and their parts) of these "irreducibly complex" things.

[egibbs]

3) A repeat question: Is the next step an "intelligent design" theory of quantum mechanics?

I really don't get your point here. Quantum mechanics is an interesting subject, but really seems a side issue as far as the understanding of evolution and creation go.

Let me try to explain...

Let's consider a simple electrical circuit - a battery, a wire, a switch, another wire, a light bulb, and another wire back to the battery.

When I close the switch, the light comes on. If I don't know why, I might be tempted to say God did it.

I learn a bit more about electricity, and I discover that electrons flow through the wires, the switch, the filament of the bulb , and back to the battery, which makes the filament heat up and glow, producing light. But why do the electrons flow? What makes them move through the circuit? It must be God.

Then I learn a bit more about electrons, and I discover that they tend to repel each other because they all have like charges. I discover that one side of the battery has a lot of extra electrons (due to a chemical reaction that is stacking them up there) and the other side has very few. So now it becomes obvious that the crowded electrons are pushing against each other, creating a pressure. When I open an outlet for that pressure, they naturally flow through it to the low pressure side. But why do like charges repel? Because that's how God made the world.

Then I learn a bit about quantum mechanics, and I discover the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which states that no two particles can be in the same quantum state - it would be like two objects being in the exact same place. So now I understand why electrons repel each other - because they are trying desperately not to violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle. But why can't two particles have the same quantum state? Because God says so.

There is still room for God, but he keeps getting pushed further and further into the background, and further and further away from everyday existence.

Once God made the Sun and planets revolve around the Earth. Then we discovered that gravity and inertia make the planets revolve around the Sun, but God must have made the Sun and planets. Then we discovered that gravity made the Sun and planets, but God must have made gravity.

We are beginning to get the inklings of what gravity really is and where it comes from. But once we figure that out, there will still be a little niche somewhere in the theory where God can hide. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem assures that.

But some people don't like this whole business of pushing God back further and further into the abstract corners of some obscure theory that only certified genuises can understand. They insist that God be front and center - right where everyone can see the wonder of his work.

That is the conflict that is currently playing out - science is explaining too much to make some people happy, and they are pushing back. Evolution is their chosen battlefield because the Bible says that God made man in his image, and it's pretty hard to reconcile that with evolution.

But if you think they will stop at evolution, then you've never lived in Kansas.

Ed Gibbs

[a31pguy]

laws which compel the Good Lord to throw the dice in each individual case, I find highly disagreeable

I can't speak for Mr. Einstein, but it seems to me that what he might be objecting to here, is that heisenberg uncertainty principle was not a sufficient explanation to be a fundamental law of physics.

The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.
--Heisenberg, uncertainty paper, 1927

I would be inclined to agree. The quantum mechanics uncertainty principle seems to be another princicple which we use because we lack the method and means to understand physics of particles at or below the quantum level. What Mr. E was really saying here (IMHO) is that it seems an awkward principle and that there is probably more to the subject than is currently understood.

But, I would also object to using this qoute as a definitive rebuttal to evolution - simply because of it's implied meaning when not seen in the physics "debate" context.

One could make the arguement (in my opinion rightly so) that Darwinian Evolution isn't sufficient enough of an explantion of the origin of life to explain the variations since it doesn't address all of the underlying principles of variation and mutation.

But to counter that arguement, it would be sufficient to say that work in the areas of the Human Geonome and understanding the DNA/RNA relationship are starting to flesh out the underlying principles supporting evolutionary theory as an explanation of the origin of our current species - Homo Sapiens. One could also make the case for particle physics starting to flesh out the underlying principles of quantum mechanics.

However, under the subject of intelligent design - there has been no significant work that supports the idea of a designer except philosophic and religeous conjecture. If I might sum it up - "that the complexity of life could not be created by random mutations and natural selection and therefore must be the product of an intentional design of a creator".

[egibbs]

laws which compel the Good Lord to throw the dice in each individual case, I find highly disagreeable

I can't speak for Mr. Einstein, but it seems to me that what he might be objecting to here, is that heisenberg uncertainty principle was not a sufficient explanation to be a fundamental law of physics.

The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.
--Heisenberg, uncertainty paper, 1927

I would be inclined to agree. The quantum mechanics uncertainty principle seems to be another princicple which we use because we lack the method and means to understand physics of particles at or below the quantum level. What Mr. E was really saying here (IMHO) is that it seems an awkward principle and that there is probably more to the subject than is currently understood.

But, I would also object to using this qoute as a definitive rebuttal to evolution - simply because of it's implied meaning when not seen in the physics "debate" context.

Not to mention the fact that Albert was proved wrong, by an experiment that he himself concocted to prove that the Uncertainty Principle was not fundamental, and that there must be hidden variables which we did not know about (google EPR experiment). When the experiment was actually run some years later, it proved definitively that there are no hidden variables. In the words of Steven Hawking, "Not only does God play dice, he throws them where we can't see them."

Ed Gibbs

[GomJabbar]

There is still room for God, but he keeps getting pushed further and further into the background, and further and further away from everyday existence.

I don't see that understanding things at a finer and finer level pushes out God at all. Even though we understand things better and better as time goes on, that does not mean that complex systems can just be explained away by science. As time goes on, of course we will understand the mechanism of life better and better, however I do not see science ever coming into an understanding of how life came to be as we know it; strictly as a physical process without an inteloper involved at some point in the chain.

Sure, they will understand how the cell works, how genetic code is passed on, perhaps even quantum mechanics. I do not see them ever getting to the point were they can mix some batch of chemicals and perhaps put an electric charge through it to create life within a cell (cell wall). Science can take the pieces of life (genes) that we have already and rearrange them, or add and subtract them to come up with some different creature, but this really proves nothing. How is science going to explain how a workable sequence ever came to be in the first place? In other words, a piece of genetic code rich enough to sustain life and reproduce. I don't think quantum mechanics is going to do it - but that's just me.

And once we make the leap of faith (yes I said it) that it took an intelligence to arrange the genetic code and put the pieces together so life could begin. It does not take too great a leap of faith to believe that this intelligence created the blueprint for the variety of life we see today.

[a31pguy]

And once we make the leap of faith (yes I said it) that it took an intelligence to arrange the genetic code and put the pieces together so life could begin.

Quite right. It's a leap of faith. I support having faith. The underlying question of who or what (it at all) put the pieces together for life to begin is still valid. But at best effort (IMHO) we are still seeing that amount of faith as "To be Determined" (or "complete faith in a creator - so science is not a threat") and not as "an intelligent designer created life" or "it was created in six days"...etc.

Intelligent Design as far as advancing the science understanding and comptitiveness of the United States should not be put into our education system because of this reason. Because it attempts to put forth faith as an easy "out" to a scientific (science as a methodology - not as a belief) study.

The questions of faith and morality are better served in the context of religeous or ethical study. If one wants to believe in a creator - one still can.

But as to public education policy - it's bad enough that we only require one year of basic arithmetic to graduate high school and that our students don't know basic geography (one needs to only watch the late night comedy to see this). We should not give our students additional reasons not to excel. I can hear the students now... "why do we study all this math? We're never going to use it in the REAL world?" or "why do we study all this microbiology? we all know that god created animals?"

At a critical time such as this - with offshoring and globilization taking away US jobs - it's critical that we focus on maintaining true competitive advantage. This means skilled workers whose merit is education, intelligence, and innovation. We aren't going to get that by watering down our science education. If anything we should be raising the bar and subsidizing our science programs and students (India and Japan have).

In Silicon Valley - the number one complaint is the lack of skilled workers (...well that and taxes and housing). Bill Gates has started a scholarship fund for this reason.

[dsvochak]

Thanks to egibbs and a31pguy for a much clearer and better explanation of my point than my poor attempt.

"I do not see science ever coming into an understanding of how life came to be as we know it; strictly as a physical process without an inteloper involved at some point in the chain."

In a final attempt at clarifying the differences between what I think that quote intends and what I have been arguing by implication, consider the following:

1) It is possible that "science [may come] into an understanding of how life came to be as we know it"

2) It is possible that science may discover that "... an inteloper (sic) [was] involved at some point in the chain"

3) It is possible that numbered assertions 1 & 2 above are wrong.

On 10/19 GomJabbar wrote "Many of them [meaning 'Evolutionists'] also refuse to take part in public discussions on the subject. Clamming up is usually a sign that your arguement is weak." Or, it just means something along the line of you see no benefit to taking part in a discussion where one side is constrained by the rules of science, logic, proof, etc and the other side isn't.

And with that I bid adieu to this discussion as it has become clear to me that we're arguing apples and oranges.