The Antikythera Mechanism and the Design Inference

_{May 17, 2017

Design inference}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Today’s Google Doodle honors the Antikythera mechanism discovered in 1901 from the Antikythera shipwreck.

This remarkable object has been the subject of intense study for more than a century, with various theories about its precise origin and construction still being put forward. Debates have played out about when it was constructed, by whom it was constructed, and the purpose of its construction.

Yet no-one has questioned whether it was designed.

It was clear from the characteristics of the object itself that it was designed.

It was clear that it was designed before subsequent questions were asked or (tentatively) answered about who designed it, when it was designed, how it was designed, where the designers came from, what their purpose was, whether there were more than one designer, and on and on. Indeed, if researchers had not first determined it were designed, those subsequent questions would never even have been asked.

Furthermore, and significantly, it was well known by scientists at the time it was discovered that the ancients had no ability to construct such a mechanism. At least that is what was thought. Some investigators even argued that it “was too complex to have been constructed during the same period as the other pieces that had been discovered.” In other words, we did not know that there was even a designer around at the time with the ability to construct such a mechanism. However, after the new discovery of the Antikythera mechanism and the eventual acceptance of its early date, we now have a new piece of information about the designer. Now we know that there was a designer at the time capable of producing the artifact in question. This is the direction in which the arrow of discovery and inference runs. Not the other way around.

The Antikythera mechanism is a wonderful example of how the design inference works in practice in the real world. And it gives the lie to so many of the anti-ID talking points against the design inference, showing that the objectors are more often motivated not by an objective search for truth but by philosophical or religious attempts to prop up a dying materialistic narrative.

Comments

OA94, don't let them strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel. The evidence of design in life is there from the coded text of D/RNA in our cells on up, and the rhetorical game is that of distractions to look at what can be imagined a flaw. Grant them their gnat for argument's sake then ask, what about the camel. KFkairosfocus_{May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

If the recurrent laryngeal nerve is so poorly done, then why didn't evolution fix the problem? Heck, evolution can create sonar, independently, in whales and bats, so it sure as heck could shorten a nerve, right?OldArmy94_{May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

CR @ 25: In humans, at least, the recurrent laryngeal nerve has stops all along the path it takes, which is the same path (if longer) in the giraffe. So, it doesn't really go out of its way at all. So, it would be "trivial" to change the path of the nerve? So we know that the embryology, a complex of interdependent recursive processes, can be modified to path the nerve along a shorter route that isn't hazardous? We know that the longer path doesn't simplify or accommodate parallel developmental structures and processes in a way superior to any other potential pathway? We're only looking at the length of the nerve, as if that's the only variable in the equation? Would a shorter path, traveling closer through the center volume, interfere with other structures? In movement? Is the nerve not making use of the surrounding structure, perhaps even the Aorta, to achieve a path parallel with the musculature, perhaps to offer structural support, or remove shear stress? Does the nerve experience less stress/wear due to movement for being longer as its deflection per length is less, and it experiences compressive rather than tensile stresses? You're eyeballing a machine beyond what any industry we know can produce, and saying you know no one actually built it, because you think you see ways to make it better without even knowing how it can be built in the first place? Here's an easy experiment: Go into your car's engine compartment, and identify all the wires that take the shortest possible path to their destination. Nit-pickety sub-optimality, without a well traveled optimality landscape, is an appeal to ignorance at best.LocalMinimum_{May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

@LocalMinimum
No one who applies objective sense to actual knowledge in this matter agrees with you on this, on either side.
The knowledge in organisms is non-explanatory in that it represents useful rules of thumb. For example, why does the laryngeal nerve in Giraffes start at its brain, go all the way down its neck, around it's aorta and then back up to its larynx? Non-Explanatory knowledge has limited reach. It does not extend beyond the original problem space, which was scoped to earlier ancestors, such as fish. However, a designer that had the same level of explanatory knowledge of routing would find it trivial use it to re-route the laryngeal nerve so it didn't go out of its way. That is because explanatory knowledge has reach. It can be used beyond the initial problem space. IOW, "poor design" in the biosphere referrs to designs that do not take into account explanatory theories of how the word works, in reality. And that's exactly what we see in organisms. As such, the best explanation for the features of organisms is non-explanatory knowledge, which doesn't require a person to create. Even human beings today can come up with a better designs because we can create explanatory theories and apply then. We are universal explainers. And as our explanations grow, so will our ability to make even better designs. So, when we take into account different kinds of knowledge (explanatory vs non-explanatory) I'm in in agreement with RVB8 on this.critical rationalist_{May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

@boru
The fact that a mechanism was made 1400 years ago does not demonstrate that Christianity played no significant role in the development of modern science, except it is logically true that if Christianity did play such a role then the mechanical device could not have been made.
To say things are the way they are due to an inexplicable mind that exists in an inexplicable realm that operates via an inexplicable means is to deny the effectiveness of human reasoning and problem solving. It's anti-rational. If we exist in a bubble of explicably, that is surrounded by an ocean of inexplicability, there can be no better explanation in that ocean other than "Zeus rules there". However, since everything here in our bubble depends on that ocean, there can be no better expiation than "Zeus rules here" as well. So, it only would appear rational if we carefully avoid asking specific questions. For example, couldn't God have decided to make the universe regular for only 13.82 billions years for some good reason we cannot understand?critical rationalist_{May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

@Eric
Yet no-one has questioned whether [the Antikythera Mechanism] was designed It was clear from the characteristics of the object itself that it was designed..
Your OP implies there is some vast irrational gap between ID and the rest of the world. But this ignores rather fundamental differences in ideas about epistemology, knowledge, our preference of explanatory theories, etc. IOW, we are in far more agreement than you suggest. And I would consider myself far more open minded that you’re portraying me. How can that be? After all, we’ll all looking at the same evidence, right? This is possible because the same empirical evidence can be explained by a vast number of different theories, including those that make drastically different and even conflicting claims about the unseen realty that accounts for that evidence. From another comment elsewhere….
Are dinosaurs merely an interpretation of our best explanation of fossils? Or are they *the* explanation for fossils? We never speak of the existence of dinosaurs, millions of years ago, as an interpretation of our best theories of fossils. Rather, we say that dinosaurs are *the* explanation for fossils. Nor is the theory primarily about fossils, but about dinosaurs, in that they are assumed to actually exist as part of the explanation. And we do so despite the fact that there are an infinite number of rival interpretations of the same data that make all the same predictions, yet say the dinosaurs never existed, millions of years ago, in reality. For example, there is the rival interpretation that fossils only come into existence when they are consciously observed. Therefore, fossils are no older than human beings. As such, they are not evidence of dinosaurs, but evidence of acts of those particular observations. Another interpretation would be that dinosaurs are such weird animals that conventional logic simply doesn't apply to them. One could suggests It's meaningless to ask if dinosaurs were real or just a useful fiction to explain fossils. (Which is an example of instrumentalism) Not to mention the rival interpretation that designer chose to create the world we observe 30 second ago. Therefore, dinosaurs couldn't be the explanation for fossils, because fossils didn't exist until 30 seconds ago. None of these other interpretations are empirically distinguishable from the rational theory of dinosaurs, in that their existence explains fossils. But we discard them because they all represent a general purpose means to deny absolutely anything. They all represent bad philosophy.
With that out of the way, let’s apply this to the topic of the OP. Do I think both the Antikythera Mechanism and biological organisms exhibit the appearance of design? Yes, I do! Do I think this is the case because of their characteristics? Yes, I do. We agree on the evidence. However, as I pointed out above, agreement on the evidence isn’t agreement on the unseen explanation for that evidence. This leads to the question as to which specific characteristics as you didn’t actually specify which constitutes the appearance of design, which you’re intuitively appealing to here. The first known use of the argument for design was actually part of an different argument between the Athenian philosopher Socrates and his pupil Aristodemus: given that the gods have created the world, do they care what happens in it? Socrates argued that they did while Aristodemus argued that they do not.
“SOCRATES: Because our eyes are delicate, they have been shuttered with eyelids that open when we have occasion to use them…And our foreheads have been fringed with eyebrows to prevent damage from the sweat of the head…And the mouth set close to the eyes and nostrils as a portal of ingress for all our supplies, whereas, since matter passing out of the body is unpleasant, the outlets are directed hindwards, as far away from the senses as possible. I ask you, when you see all these things constructed with such show of foresight, can you doubt whether they are products of chance or design?”
Again, we’re in agreement that the appearance of design in living things is something that needs to be explained. And it cannot be the mere “product of chance” because it signals the presence of knowledge. However, Socrates never got around to stating what actually constitutes the appearance of design. Does rainbows and crystals have it? Does the sun or rocks have it? How are they different from biological adaptations, such as eyebrows? From another comment elsewhere…
[The characteristics which represent the appearance of design] was addressed by William Paley. Set against a backdrop of encountering either a rock or a watch in a clearing, Paley imagined wondering how either object came to exist. It's from this setting that Paley explained why the watch would require a significantly different explanation than the stone. In the case of the stone, Paley though it might have been lying there forever. However, with our current knowledge of the earth's history we would refer to exploding stars, the conversion of elements and cooling of the earth's crust. But this does not change Paley's underlying argument: namely, the explanation of how the stone came about, or the raw materials found in the watch, could not explain the watch itself. A watch couldn't have been lying there forever or formed via the same process of the rock. Nor could it have spontaneously appeared from it's raw materials, like a crystal or a star. Nor could it be a raw material itself. But why not, asked Paley. Why, exactly, wouldn't the same answer for the rock suffice for the watch? Paley knew why. It's because the watch not only serves a purpose but is *adapted* to that purpose.
For this reason, and for no other, viz., that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g., that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to pout out the hour of the day
We cannot explain the watch's configuration of matter without referring to its purpose of keeping time and doing so accurately. It's not a coincidence that it keeps accurate time, or that its individual parts are well suited for this task, or that they are put together in this configuration, rather than another. Therefore, people must have designed that watch. Of course, Paley's argument implied this is even more true in the case of biological organisms. He could simply point to the human eye to make his point. Specifically, the evidence for the appearance of design is not only that all parts serve that purpose, but if they were slightly altered they would serve it less well, or not even at all. In other words, a good design is hard to vary.
If the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, or if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served. So, merely being useful for a purpose, without being hard to vary while still serving that purpose, does not reflect the appearance of design. For example, we can use the sun to keep time, even though it would serve that purpose equally well if all of its features were slightly or even massively modified. For the purpose of keeping time, It could be cooler, larger, etc. All it has to do is be visible in the sky. It is the earth that rotates around the sun. Just as we adapt the earth's raw materials to serve a purpose, we also find uses for the sun it was never design or adapted to provided. Yet again, I think we’re in agreement here, in that aspects of the human body are well adapted (from raw materials) to serve a purpose. However, I’ve seen resistance to the idea regarding information, as if it does share this fundamental characteristic. But, that’s what physical representations of information are - well adapted matter. For example, the genome is information embedded in a physical storage medium. This represents physical matter that has been well adapted to serve the purpose of representing that information. If you copy information from one storage medium to another, the destination medium is physically transformed (well adapted) to store a copy of that information. And if you modify that storage medium, even slightly, it does not perform that purpose nearly as well, if even at all. So, when faced with the question of which transformations of matter should be performed, whether we’re referring to the human eye or a information storage medium, the answer represents knowledge. This we seem to agree on. However, where we diverge is the question of the origin of that knowledge. In the case of the Antikythera Mechanism, why was there no question as to whether it was designed? Because human beings were the best explanation for the specific features and simulated output of the mechanism. For example, It was discovered off the coast of Greece, the Greeks were sailers and the ability to predict the nights sky from the earths surface would be highly useful to them. It contain indicators and inscriptions composed in Koine Greek More importantly, the mechanism embodied a version of the false, geocentric model of the solar system, which was used by Greek astronomers for centuries.This is an explanatory theory of how the world works. While we can create both non-explanatory and explanatory knowledge, the latter can only be created by people. It has reach in that it predicts the position of specific objects in the night sky for up to 75 years. And it wasn’t very accurate. Specifically, it corresponded with pre-Ptolemy levels of accuracy. IOW, our best explanation for the knowledge it represents are human Greeks (people) in roughly 150 BC. Specifically, what they knew, when the knew it, etc. Of course, it’s logically possible that Zeus willed the Antikythera Mechanism to appear out of thin air for the Greeks. But that’s a bad explanation because it denies that the knowledge of how to predict the night sky genuinely grew and improved over time. It’s creation denial because some creator “just was” complete with that knowledge, already present.
Creationism, therefore, is misleadingly named. It is not a theory explaining knowledge as being due to creation, but the opposite: it is denying that creation happened in reality, by placing the origin of the knowledge in an explanationless realm. Creationism is really creation denial – and so are all those other false explanations.”
ID is a bad explanation as is creationism or even induction. This is because their explanation for the growth of knowledge is either supernatural, absent or irrational. ID denies that we can make progress regarding that knowledge by artificially limiting the theory. Of course, this is no surprise as any explanation for that knowledge would exclude God as he is supposedly inexplicable. At best, it's based on induction, but that's impossible as the future does not represent the past in a vast number of ways. Again, we defer to explanations, and as indicated above, and ID doesn't actually present any. ID’s designer is abstract and has no explanation for that knowledge. It just has the property of “design” which is like saying fire has the property of dryness. For example, our current explanation for how stars work indicates a star of the class and size of our sun would have burnt though roughly half of its hydrogen and has roughly 5 billion years remaining. As such, we expect it to rise tomorrow. However, if our explanation for how stars work indicates a star of the class and size of our sun would have burned all of it’s hydrogen in 4 billion years, and would completely wink out when exhausted, we wouldn’t expect it to rise tomorrow, despite the fact that it has risen every day for as long as human beings have been around to observe it. Also note, before we could come up with a false conclusion that observations would not continue tomorrow, we would have had to first come up with a false theory of how stars works. So, it’s impossible to interpret observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework. Darwinism is the theory that knowledge in organisms grows via variation and selection. This is only random to a specific problem to solve, not completely random. And the knowledge is non-explanatory as it has limited reach. Only people can create explanatory knowledge. So, to summarize, we agree that the well adaptedness of biological organisms can only only be explained by knowledge. Where we disagree is that a person is the best explanation for that specific knowledge, or that only a person could have created it.critical rationalist_{May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

rvb8 @ 12:
this biological design is rather less than intelligent
It's absolutely astounding how you can just say that. Biology has practically been our map to the optimality landscape; we're still amateurishly poking around at means to build even the simplest of these mechanisms; and evolutionary literature and scientific papers are overflowing with praise of and amazement at the level of features and functionality of these systems. No one who applies objective sense to actual knowledge in this matter agrees with you on this, on either side.LocalMinimum_{May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

johnnyb @ 7
The claim you are responding to is not the claim being made. It is *not* the claim of anyone I am aware of that no other age did anything scientific or engineering. Quite the opposite in fact. What *is* being claimed is that nothing *took hold* as science that could be carried intergenerationally because the culture lacked the ability to process science.
Yes, I realize that my point was tangential to that of the OP but I still believe it was worth making. It is fascinating that a Mediterranean culture could develop the capability to produce something like the Antikythera Mechanism only for it to be apparently lost completely before it was re-acquired 1400 years later in Christian Europe. It makes one wonder just how much else is out there still waiting to be found.Seversky_{May 19, 2017
May
05
May
19
19
2017
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

Eric Anderson @ 6
I agree that one need not be a Christian or even a person of faith to do good bench science and engineering. And your caution against assuming faith as a critical aspect of practical science is warranted, although I’m not sure I’ve ever heard anyone claim that Christianity is the “sole origin and cradle of science”.
There have been contributors to this blog who have advocated that position although not necessarily in those words.
When I have heard arguments about the value of Christian faith as it relates to science it has typically been in the context of beating back claims about the need for separate non-overlapping magisteria, or in response to shrill anti-religious rhetoric that people of faith are “destroying science” or taking us “back to the dark ages”. In that context it is certainly valid to point out that faith has not generally operated as a hindrance to science and in many cases has even inspired scientific efforts and development.
As I have written before, I do not deny that Christianity played a significant role in fostering science in Europe or that many of the world's scientists have held - and been inspired by - strong religious beliefs. Quite clearly, it is possible to hold such beliefs and practice good science. Problems can and do arise, however, where there is a perceived conflict between scientific theory and religious belief. The one that has, perhaps, most concerned contributors to this blog has been pressure from within the evangelical Christian community to either have the theory of evolution removed from the school science curriculum or to have Biblical creationism included as if it were a theory of equal standing within the scientific community. That movement has not succeeded formally but there is evidence that some high school science teachers do not mention evolution by name for fear of criticism by students and parents and some even openly teach creationism. That trend should be resisted.Seversky_{May 19, 2017
May
05
May
19
19
2017
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

That should have read "1400 years before the Christian era".boru_{May 19, 2017
May
05
May
19
19
2017
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

The fact that a mechanism was made 1400 years ago does not demonstrate that Christianity played no significant role in the development of modern science, except it is logically true that if Christianity did play such a role then the mechanical device could not have been made. These two options are not absolute alternatives, except it is proposed that Christianity is the sole means of the promotion of science. Most historians who think that Christianity did play a significant role in the promotion and establishment of science in the western world, do not argue that Christianity was the sole means. Indeed, Christian culture historically gave a prominent and foundational role to the importance of Ancient Greek philosophy as a basis of scientific thinking. It should be recalled that Greek culture was as much devoted to a theory of geocentrism as was post-Greek European culture. And in the same way, the fact that Pythagorean philosophers devised a theory of heliocentrism almost two thousand years before Copernicus did, does not demonstrate that modern science played no role in the promotion of a theory of heliocentrism in the modern era. If atheists and science-types want to keep waving the flags of Reason and Logic, then they ought to learn how to use them.boru_{May 19, 2017
May
05
May
19
19
2017
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

EA asks @15 – “Why is biological design far from obvious? Well obviously it wasn’t created with “easy round numbers, then that would point to design.”Heartlander_{May 19, 2017
May
05
May
19
19
2017
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

rvb8: Also:
Of course it was designed.
You seem pretty sure of yourself. How do you know the Antikythera mechanism was designed? Why is it so obvious?Eric Anderson_{May 19, 2017
May
05
May
19
19
2017
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

rvb8: Why is biological design far from obvious? In any other context it would clearly indicate design. What is it about the fact that biological systems are constructed with bio-molecules that makes design suddenly not obvious? Is there something objective about the characteristics of the system that makes it hard to tell? Or are we dealing with an a priori philosophical commitment that makes it hard to accept -- being willing to grasp at any straw for answers . . . just as long as the answer isn't design?Eric Anderson_{May 19, 2017
May
05
May
19
19
2017
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

@RVB8: "however biological design is far from obvious." I suppose these biological functioning gears in the leg joints of an insect are insufficient evidence for you as well. Good grief you AMats are frustrating. https://phys.org/news/2013-09-functioning-mechanical-gears-nature.htmlAnimatedDust_{May 19, 2017
May
05
May
19
19
2017
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

RVB8: Again, you are simply putting up talking points, a theme that has been on the table since the thread on your attempts to subvert the faith of young converts. I have pointed out in your presence that Paley's watch discussion in Ch 1 leads to the onward discussion of a self-replicating time-keeping watch as a thought exercise in Ch 2, and including that of a quasi-infinite chain of such entities. His quite correct point was that the additional functionally specific complexity INCREASES the admiration for the contrivance, and onward for its author. Secondly, there have been many attempts to pretend that the biological world is foull of bad designs so this discredits design. Even poor or evil design is, of course, still design, and this is frankly a jaded attempt to distract from the pattern of design excellence that utterly dominates the biological world. Beyond, for nearly 70 years now we know that complex text lies at the heart of the living cell, which is a linguistic and even mathematical phenomenon as this is algorithmic information. The demonstration of alphabetic, algorithmical functional text beyond 500 - 1,000+ bits arising by blind search chance and necessity is: ______ (Correct answer, nil.) KF PS: The round numbers talking point you keep on putting up simply exudes the want of understanding of real world design on your part. It may suffice to confuse a young and naive person, but that you are forced to such a resort is itself a sign of how weak your arguments fundamentally are. PPS: The mechanism in the case is evidently a mechanism, a contrivance of the order of stumbling on a watch in a field. Suppose now it were further found that this mechanism was capable of self replication, would that reduce or increase our strength of inference regarding design, on seeing FSCO/I? Which is exactly what stares at us through the presence of evident mechanism. You have rejected a straw description of the design inference and its strength. This again, shows the weakness of the objecting case, as it cannot face the actual argument being made.kairosfocus_{May 19, 2017
May
05
May
19
19
2017
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT}

Of course it was designed. Just as William Paley's watch found on the beach was designed. However, biological design is far from obvious. In fact as has been pointed out by far greater minds ( than me, or the contributors here and that dominate the field today, and yesterday), this biological design is rather less than intelligent, and certainly not obvious. Taking a piece of Greek design and saying, 'look design', is weak by any argumentive POV. It is right up there with Rushmore.rvb8_{May 19, 2017
May
05
May
19
19
2017
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT}

This pattern is becoming quite predictable. 1) OP makes a solid point in favor of ID. 2) ID-critic doesn't actually address the point, but instead makes some tangential or pedantic comment as though addressing the point. 3) Tangential comment is corrected. 4) ID-critic exits conversation having never even attempted to address the clear point of the OP. Rinse and repeat.Phinehas_{May 18, 2017
May
05
May
18
18
2017
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

Seversky: Off topic strawman jibber jabber
I'm jealous of the people who didn't have to read that trainwreck of a post...Sebestyen_{May 18, 2017
May
05
May
18
18
2017
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Ptolemy was a polytheistic Greek and was widely regarded by even medieval Christians, who eventually discarded and replaced his view with what we have now. EDITEDbb_{May 18, 2017
May
05
May
18
18
2017
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

Christianity = TruthTruth Will Set You Free_{May 18, 2017
May
05
May
18
18
2017
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Seversky - The claim you are responding to is not the claim being made. It is *not* the claim of anyone I am aware of that no other age did anything scientific or engineering. Quite the opposite in fact. What *is* being claimed is that nothing *took hold* as science that could be carried intergenerationally because the culture lacked the ability to process science. That is, there is nothing about polytheism that prevents people from building inventions. However, to have a *culture* of innovation and science requires a large percentage of the population to believe that the world has an order behind it. The people as a whole have to believe that these things can be relied on in a general fashion in order for the results to take hold on a large scale, and they have to believe that such results can be found in order to have a large enough supply of people dedicate time to looking into them. The question isn't about individuals, it is about sociological requirements for a societal movement. That conclusion could be right or wrong, and is certainly worthy of criticism, but it would be helpful for you to actually address the claim rather than a straw-man version of it.johnnyb_{May 18, 2017
May
05
May
18
18
2017
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Seversky: I agree that one need not be a Christian or even a person of faith to do good bench science and engineering. And your caution against assuming faith as a critical aspect of practical science is warranted, although I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone claim that Christianity is the "sole origin and cradle of science". Whether a worldview built on faith makes science ultimately more meaningful than a materialistic worldview is a separate question, and one that would rationally come down on the side of faith. But I agree there is merit in distinguishing the question of background meaning or purpose from practical bench science. When I have heard arguments about the value of Christian faith as it relates to science it has typically been in the context of beating back claims about the need for separate non-overlapping magisteria, or in response to shrill anti-religious rhetoric that people of faith are "destroying science" or taking us "back to the dark ages". In that context it is certainly valid to point out that faith has not generally operated as a hindrance to science and in many cases has even inspired scientific efforts and development.Eric Anderson_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT}

It rather undercuts the hubristic claims of some Christians concerning the role of their faith as the sole origin and cradle of science.
Haven't heard that claim specifically. And certainly knowledge can be lost. But we're currently benefitting from science and technology that has Christian roots.EDTA_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

Of course, it should be noted that this device was designed and built by polytheistic ancient Greece some 1400 years before Christian Europe would develop an equivalent capability. It rather undercuts the hubristic claims of some Christians concerning the role of their faith as the sole origin and cradle of science.Seversky_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

EA, very well said. KFkairosfocus_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

Thanks, johnnyb. Looks like a good resource!Eric Anderson_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

For anyone interested, we have a chapter that focuses on the Antikythera Mechanism in the book Engineering and the Ultimate. Chapter 2, "Reversible Universe: Implications of Affordance-Based Reverse Engineering of Complex Natural Systems" covers this topic quite well.johnnyb_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply