Genomic Junk and Evolution

_{Cornelius Hunter

July 5, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Evolution was claimed to be an undeniable fact in the nineteenth century so today new proofs hardly seem necessary. But science continues to offer them up, say evolutionists, as we probe the depths of biology. These days a common source of such proofs is the genomic data which exploded onto the scene in recent decades. But are the new data really undeniable confirmations of Enlightenment speculation or are the new data merely interpreted according to the same old metaphysics? Read more

Comments

Consider the following word game: [A] It was once the situation that nothing existed. [B] A situation is something. [C] Thus, nothing existed except the situation, which means that both something existed and nothing existed. Placing the word "situation" in a clumsy context allows one to muddle the analysis? This is the anti-ID, Wikipedia mentality.StephenB_{July 11, 2010
July
07
Jul
11
11
2010
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

Rob, I understand that you are pressed for time, but somewhere in the future I hope you will respond to at least two points. [A] ---Rob to BornAgain77: [Do you believe in a first cause?] "No, but if you show me the math, and if the math is valid, then I’ll believe. Are you going to show me?" ---Rob to me: "Religiously, I believe in an interventionist God, so I have no ideological objections to divinely guided evolution." I don't understand how these two statements can be reconciled. From either a religious or metaphysical perspective, God is the first cause. [B] I am wondering if, given your contention that empirical findings can invalidate the law of causation through which those findings are interpreted, you also believe that empirical findings can invalidate the laws of mathematics through which they are measured.StephenB_{July 11, 2010
July
07
Jul
11
11
2010
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

RE 188 Perhaps I should be more precise: Every finite, contingent, event (effect) can only come from something. Vividvividbleau_{July 11, 2010
July
07
Jul
11
11
2010
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

R0b,
Is it logically possible for a cubic meter of space to be sufficiently removed from celestial objects so as to contain nothing?
We don't understand nature logically in the respect you mean it, for it is by induction, and we cannot say whether it is logical or not, that is an "all possible worlds" kind of question. Since we cannot say why nature is the way it is, we cannot say why it couldn't have been otherwise. If you mean to imply that it is logically impossible for a cubic meter of space to be removed from celestial objects, so as to contain nothing, in the same way that 2+2=7, we do not know this. My own opinion is that anything within the universe cannot in any conceivable way be nothing, because the nothing would still be in the universe, and hence have at least a spacial quality. It is therefore impossible to have "true nothing" in our universe. Nothing is not a regularity, for there would be nothing to be regular about. It is not impossible to conceive of nothing. But if scientists were ever to attempt getting something from nothing, they couldn't do it in any conceivable way, given that they would at least need a space to conduct their science in, and they themselves would give a false atmosphere, because they themselves are not nothing, and so they couldn't reproduce any state of something coming from nothing, something without them there, proper to true nothing occurring, which would of course exclude them. Yes I think abstractions exist, more so than physical matter. We're talking about nothing on the physical plane, not nothing in respect to abstractions, that seems like a red herring.Clive Hayden_{July 11, 2010
July
07
Jul
11
11
2010
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

—Rob: When I said “pre-scientific,” I was referring to the approach of looking at a concept from a thousand-foot vantage point and thinking that you grok it.” ---"I meant “pre-scientific” as it’s commonly used, to indicate the way things were done before science." A "thousand foot" vantage point has little to do with "the way things were done before science." Since you were characterizing my approach to science, I was asking you to be constant with your meaning. As it is, I still do not know which way you meant it. The point is not to belabor a trivial issue [or quibble over definitions] but rather to clarify the point that, unlike the findings of science, the rules of right reason are not provisional. Thus, it is not "pre-science" to insist on the legitimacy of those non-negotiable foundations without which there can be no science. ---"Intuitively, it seems ridiculous that RM+NS can produce everything we see in biology, but many of my intuitions are manifestly wrong. Duly noted. ---"Gotta go. More later — probably much later. Fair enough.StephenB_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
Given your insistence on the importance of precise definitions, that seems like a rather odd comment. “Pre means “earlier,” “before,” or “prior to.” So, when you said “pre-science,” you would seem to have meant prior to modern science. I know of no dictionary that defines “pre” as meaning from a lofty vantage point.
I meant "pre-scientific" as it's commonly used, to indicate the way things were done before science. That would include placing confidence in ideas that aren't even well-defined, much less tested. (Pre-science: The four essential elements are earth, water, air, and fire. Science: What exactly does that statement entail, and how do we test it?) Since I didn't say anything about looking at science from a lofty vantage point, I don't see where you got the idea that I don't know what "pre-" means.
Indeed, your entire argument stands on the assumption that modern scientific progress can trump those ancient and antiquated rules of right reason.
Yep, that's pretty much the gist of it. Many propositions have been put forth through the ages as first principles. How did you decide which ones to include under your moniker of "principles of right reason"? Are you the first person to compile the real principles of right reason that really are prerequisites for science? If so, it seems that you deserve at least as much fame as Euclid and Peano.
What do you mean by that which does or doesn’t “work?”
I mean that which accomplishes whatever I'm trying to do. For science, it's whatever produces accurate predictive models.
Darwin’s special theory obviously doesn’t work, but you accept it.
I haven't said anything about Darwin's theory, so you're jumping to conclusions. I have no background in biology, so I have no informed basis on which to judge evolutionary theory. Intuitively, it seems ridiculous that RM+NS can produce everything we see in biology, but many of my intuitions are manifestly wrong. I do know that in the sweet spot between order and chaos, negative and positive feedback loops can work together to do very unexpected things. Religiously, I believe in an interventionist God, so I have no ideological objections to divinely guided evolution. But I don't find the ID arguments against natural evolution, especially those formulated by non-biologists, to be very impressive. That's my very clueless position on Darwinism. Gotta go. More later -- probably much later.R0b_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

What’s not useful about the “intuitive understanding” of a straight line?
Among other things, the intuitive understanding of straight lines precludes understanding general relativity. Science doesn't trump reason, but it often trumps intuition. Interestingly, there's and article in the current issue of Scientific American about whether conservation of energy applies at cosmic scales. I don't present is as true, just as an example of counterintuitive ideas that physics has to examine.Petrushka_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT}

R0b- "Gladly. Like all productive people, including scientists, I hold to what works and throw out what doesn’t work. Since science is in the business of producing predictive models, it uses methods and principles that have a good track record in that department. It uses tools until they’ve outlived their usefulness. Sometimes it uses part of the existing edifice as scaffolding, knowing that it’ll be torn down in the future. Some things are very tentative, while others are only negligibly tentative." Right cause and effect works, that's basic. It has a good track record, i.e. always being true. Can you use specific examples as to what you feel has "outlived" its usefulness and why? Can you then go on to support that assertion in a logically valid way that follows from the premises?Phaedros_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

[Reasons rules can hardly be “pre-scientific” because reason’s rules do not change.] ---Rob: When I said "pre-scientific," I was referring to the approach of looking at a concept from a thousand-foot vantage point and thinking that you grok it." Given your insistence on the importance of precise definitions, that seems like a rather odd comment. "Pre means "earlier," "before," or "prior to." So, when you said "pre-science," you would seem to have meant prior to modern science. I know of no dictionary that defines "pre" as meaning from a lofty vantage point. Indeed, your entire argument stands on the assumption that modern scientific progress can trump those ancient and antiquated rules of right reason. ---"Gladly. Like all productive people, including scientists, I hold to what works and throw out what doesn’t work." What do you mean by that which does or doesn't "work?" Darwin's special theory obviously doesn't work, but you accept it. --"Things that historically have not worked well include (a) not bothering to flesh out the meaning and implications of our hypotheses precisely, and (b) casting “self-evident” beliefs in concrete. Consider Maxwell’s equations, which are among the most elegant results of physics." Self evident doesn't mean that which appears to be true. It means that which must be true. If a proposition turns out to be false, then it obviously could not have been a self evident truth. No principle in physics can be a self evident truth because all science is provisional, a point that I am sure you would not challenge. This is the second time in one post that you have mishandled a definition, and definitions appear to be your primary concern. ---"But fortunately some scientists were fastidious enough to pull on this tiny thread and watch many “self-evident” principles unravel. Such is modern physics." To correct a provisional finding in science is not to change one of reason's first principles. it is reason's rules that provide the foundation that allows the for correction. --"Why can’t we just use the predictive accuracy of our models as a yardstick?" How can you measure the predictive accuracy of anything without respecting the laws of mathematics? Indeed, how can you even measure the events themselves absent those laws. Is it your judgment that further scientific findings could, in principle, invalidate some of those laws as well? You are cutting off the limb on which you sit.StephenB_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

RE 188 Phaedros I know as it relates to Rob I am embracing a minorty opinion. Vividvividbleau_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

Vivid- I don't think that's what R0b does. He puts on that appearance but IMO he is playing word games most of the time.Phaedros_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

Rob RE 186 "By that logic, wouldn’t it be equally incoherent to say “something cannot come from nothing” I dont think so but it is sort of stating the obvious and I guess could be considered redundant. Perhaps one could say 'something can only come from something" Is that more coherent? "Actually, what I said was, “‘nothing’ can mean different things”. I intended the quotes to signal that I’m referring to the term “nothing” rather than its referent." There you go again Rob playing your semantic games!!! :) Of course I am just kidding. FWIW I disagree with those who take you to task because you request defininitional clarification the various words that we bandy about. To drill down to get to the nitty gritty IMO is very much a neccessary process. I am one wo subscribes to the dictum that the "devil is always in the details" I also very much appreciate your contribution to ths board. You are always respectfull and I value your observatons even though we often disagree LOL With that being stated do you agree with my what I wrote? "It seems to me that as soon as you say “nothing can mean different things” we no longer can be dicussing nothing since nothing is NoThing. It has no thingness ( my word) What we really are describing are different things and calling these different things nothing even though they are things and cannot be nothing" Vividvividbleau_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

vividbleau @ 161:
Hope life is treating you well.
It is, and thank you for your kindness. I hope you're well also.
It seems to me that as soon as you say “nothing can mean different things” we no longer can be dicussing nothing since nothing is NoThing.
Actually, what I said was, "'nothing' can mean different things". I intended the quotes to signal that I'm referring to the term "nothing" rather than its referent.
Since it is impossible to even concieve “nothing” to say something came from nothing is indeed incoherent.
By that logic, wouldn't it be equally incoherent to say "something cannot come from nothing"?R0b_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

Phaedros @ 180:
What’s not useful about the “intuitive understanding” of a straight line?
Petrushka didn't say that it's not useful, he/she said that it's not always useful. And indeed such intuitions are a hindrance more than a help in non-Euclidean geometry.R0b_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

Clive @ 175, thank you for answering. Is it logically possible for a cubic meter of space to be sufficiently removed from celestial objects so as to contain nothing? Does it make sense to say that this region contains laws, and therefore any vacuum fluctuations that occur therein really did not come from nothing? What does it mean to have an absence of state? Would that not itself be a state? If there is nothing, then is that not a regularity? Do abstractions exist, a la Plato? If so, what would it mean for abstractions to be absent?R0b_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

Venus, Your lack of response to my last comment leads me to believe that you really don’t grasp the extent to the problem of induction when it comes to our understanding of nature and what we call “natural laws”, they are not real laws, only repetitions. This must be so, because I have no idea where exactly you're finding the problem here. Is it because I'm using the word 'law' in a rather careless way? If so, assume that I mean 'rule' instead. But common descent doesn’t even rise to what we would normally call a “law” and is therefore whatever anyone wants to make it out to be. Not true! Common descent always produces a nested hierarchy. No 'whatever anyone wants to make it out to be'. Why not do the e-mail experiment and prove it to yourself? You don't even have to actually send out e-mails, you can just write a program that pretends it's doing so. I'll even bet money on it: that a process of descent with modification will produce a nested hierarchy.Venus Mousetrap_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

If they are capable of sound reasoning, they do; if they are not capable of sound reasoning, or would prefer not to reason, they may not.
Do you know if any of them use the full set of rules that you claim are prerequisites for science?
There is nothing to address. Basic rules of reason cannot be reduced to “nuts and bolts” explanations.
I'm not talking about explanations, I'm talking about precise definitions.
Reasons rules can hardly be “pre-scientific” because reason’s rules do not change.
When I said "pre-scientific", I was referring to the approach of looking at a concept from a thousand-foot vantage point and thinking that you grok it.
Without that stable yardstick of measurement, no scientific progress would be possible because there would be no way to correct the errors of the past.
Why can't we just use the predictive accuracy of our models as a yardstick? Empirical measurements have served quite well in correcting the errors of the past. Can you give us an example of an error whose correction required a hard-and-fast "something cannot come from nothing" rule?
Indeed, it is that same yardstick that allows us to be “surprised” by quantum events.
Are you talking about surprise at the outcomes of given quantum events, or our surprise at discovering quantum behavior in general? If you mean the former, obviously QM outcomes are surprising in the sense of being unpredictable, yardstick or no yardstick. If you mean the latter, the discovery of quantum behavior invalidated principles that many people held to be self-evident, just as you hold "reason's rules" to be self-evident. Future scientific discoveries will no doubt force us to reconsider other "self-evident" principles. Perhaps one day we'll stop being surprised at having rugs pulled out from under us.
If the surprise could invalidate the yardstick, no further surprises would be possible and all past errors would no longer be errors. I am amazed that so many Darwinists on this site do not understand this point.
Is there only one yardstick? Is this an all-or-nothing situation where falsifying one long-held principle requires us to throw out everything?
Just for fun, take a little of your own medicine and define what you mean by a “nuts and bolts” level.
I mean a level of precision at which the meaning of something is elucidated by addressing very specific questions.
Equally important, tell us what standards you would use to interpret evidence if not reason’s standards? Do you have another criteria that you would be willing to share with us? Since you do not accept reason’s standards, tell us which standards you do accept.
Gladly. Like all productive people, including scientists, I hold to what works and throw out what doesn't work. Since science is in the business of producing predictive models, it uses methods and principles that have a good track record in that department. It uses tools until they've outlived their usefulness. Sometimes it uses part of the existing edifice as scaffolding, knowing that it'll be torn down in the future. Some things are very tentative, while others are only negligibly tentative. Things that historically have not worked well include (a) not bothering to flesh out the meaning and implications of our hypotheses precisely, and (b) casting "self-evident" beliefs in concrete. Consider Maxwell's equations, which are among the most elegant results of physics. It would have been easy to be so enamored with their beauty that we failed to notice one of their implications, namely that the speed of light is frame-invariant. But fortunately some scientists were fastidious enough to pull on this tiny thread and watch many "self-evident" principles unravel. Such is modern physics.R0b_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

Venus, Your lack of response to my last comment leads me to believe that you really don't grasp the extent to the problem of induction when it comes to our understanding of nature and what we call "natural laws", they are not real laws, only repetitions. But common descent doesn't even rise to what we would normally call a "law" and is therefore whatever anyone wants to make it out to be. This is part of the problem. There are no rules that couldn't have been otherwise.Clive Hayden_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

RE 178 "Reason itself is not the problem. Pre-scientific assumptions and intuitions are the problem." I dont know whether to laugh or cry? Vividvividbleau_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

What's not useful about the "intuitive understanding" of a straight line?Phaedros_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

The law is imposed by common descent. Common descent is what’s in question, for starters, and to argue for it by it is to beg the question; and no, it’s not a law imposed by common descent. You rewind the tape of evolution and start again, you will get very different creatures, that have features we cannot imagine. That's not what I'm trying to describe. I'll try to be as clear as possible. I'm not talking about laws that determine what animals can possibly exist, or what we would get if we rewound evolution. I am talking laws that determine what animals can exist now, based on what we know about animals that currently exist, and the mechanism of common descent. There is no law that says that we must have five fingers on each hand, and to imagine four is a mental impossibility, like 2+2=7. Let me try an analogy. This may look a little odd with a bunch of random words, but fly with it. Write an e-mail containing a single word, say, 'DESIGN'. Send it to a dozen people, and ask them to add a second word. Some might add 'BIOLOGY' or 'GIRAFFE'. Have them send their modified copies to a dozen other people to add a third word. Keep doing this until the email is ten words in length. Eventually, one of these emails might look like: DESIGN BIOLOGY TIMBER LAPSE BOVINE SEAL ZEBRA VORTEX QUEEN PIPE Now how about this; I have one of these e-mails, but I'm only going to give you the last four words. Those words are ZEBRA WATER GANYMEDE PIE. With that knowledge, can you reconstruct the rest of the e-mail? Of course you can. It's easy. Everything which has a ZEBRA also has a SEAL, because ZEBRA was added after SEAL. Everything which has a SEAL has a BOVINE. Everything which has a BOVINE has a LAPSE. The rule 'you can only add one word' absolutely requires this to be true. The rule 'animals can only change by descent' absolutely requires that antlered animals have hoofs, because the first animal to have antlers had hoofs. We know that because we know about other animals that share features with deer - that is, we have one of the 'other emails'. We also have some of the 'earlier emails' in the form of fossils. If we found an email where some of the words were NOT what we expect, then we know that someone has broken the rules. If we found an email with normal sentences, or random words, we would know that they weren't even going by the rules. Animals seem to play by the rules of common descent. Find an animal that breaks the rules, and common descent will have a problem. Nobody has found anything that causes much problem, and what they have found is a lot of other evidence to support common descent. So, to return to my point; common descent is not disputed by most, and therefore, this allows us to narrow down the times when an intelligent designer can act.Venus Mousetrap_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

Equally important, tell us what standards you would use to interpret evidence if not reason’s standards?
Reason is only as correct and useful as its axioms, and science, beginning with relativity and quantum theory, has taught us that intuitive understanding of things like straight lines and "nothing" are not always useful. Reason itself is not the problem. Pre-scientific assumptions and intuitions are the problem.Petrushka_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

Rob RE 173 "Physicists have not created a physics-only overload of the term “nothing”. Rather, they’ve shown that the concept isn’t as easy to pin down as we might have previously thought" Rob there can never be a concept of nothing, it is indeed impossible to conceptualize nothing. If I were to ask what is the concept of nothing physicists would start talking about something. Surely you see the absurdity of "a concept of nothing? Vividvividbleau_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

Gaz,
and especially the subsection “Science” – essentially, having “nothing” in this Universe is impossible.
It is indeed impossible.Clive Hayden_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

R0b,
I haven’t denied any meaning of the word. I’ve asked questions in an effort to resolve ambiguities. I’ll ask the same questions again: Which of the following must be absent in order for there to be “nothing”: - matter - energy - quantum wave functions - state - events - regularities - statistical regularities
All of them, and anything else that you can add.Clive Hayden_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

---Rob: "Do physicists constrain their thinking according to this philosophy?" [Rules of right reason] If they are capable of sound reasoning, they do; if they are not capable of sound reasoning, or would prefer not to reason, they may not. --"And yet you will not or cannot address it at a nuts-and-bolts level. It’s easy to look at a concept from a thousand feet up and feel confident that you grok it. That’s a pre-scientific approach." There is nothing to address. Basic rules of reason cannot be reduced to "nuts and bolts" explanations. If they could be so reduced, they would not be basic. Reasons rules can hardly be "pre-scientific" because reason's rules do not change. Without that stable yardstick of measurement, no scientific progress would be possible because there would be no way to correct the errors of the past. Indeed, it is that same yardstick that allows us to be "surprised" by quantum events. If the surprise could invalidate the yardstick, no further surprises would be possible and all past errors would no longer be errors. I am amazed that so many Darwinists on this site do not understand this point. Just for fun, take a little of your own medicine and define what you mean by a "nuts and bolts" level. Equally important, tell us what standards you would use to interpret evidence if not reason's standards? Do you have another criteria that you would be willing to share with us? Since you do not accept reason's standards, tell us which standards you do accept.StephenB_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
—Rob: “As far as I know, “nothing” is not a term of art in physics.” —Gaz: “– actually, in physics, ‘nothing’ is very complex.” Rob consult with Gaz.
Why? Does Gaz think that "nothing" is a term of art in physics? Physicists have not created a physics-only overload of the term "nothing". Rather, they've shown that the concept isn't as easy to pin down as we might have previously thought. They've done the same for the concepts of space, time, matter, etc.
Thus, the statement “from nothing, nothing comes,” or its semantic equivalent “something cannot come from nothing” is a philosophical formulation that, more than anything else, defines the logic of science.
So you say. Do physicists constrain their thinking according to this philosophy? Do they, unlike you, define precisely what it means? Can you provide a cite?
In spite of all these protests to the contrary, everyone knows what “nothing” means.
And yet you will not or cannot address it at a nuts-and-bolts level. It's easy to look at a concept from a thousand feet up and feel confident that you grok it. That's a pre-scientific approach.R0b_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

Venus Mousetrap,
The law is imposed by common descent.
Common descent is what's in question, for starters, and to argue for it by it is to beg the question; and no, it's not a law imposed by common descent. You rewind the tape of evolution and start again, you will get very different creatures, that have features we cannot imagine. There is no law that says that we must have five fingers on each hand, and to imagine four is a mental impossibility, like 2+2=7. Seeing any two things together physically doesn't mean that we understand why they are together philosophically. "But the scientific men do muddle their heads, until they imagine a necessary mental connection between an apple leaving the tree and an apple reaching the ground. They do really talk as if they had found not only a set of marvellous facts, but a truth connecting those facts. They do talk as if the connection of two strange things physically connected them philosophically. They feel that because one incomprehensible thing constantly follows another incomprehensible thing the two together somehow make up a comprehensible thing. Two black riddles make a white answer. A law implies that we know the nature of the generalisation and enactment; not merely that we have noticed some of the effects. If there is a law that pick-pockets shall go to prison, it implies that there is an imaginable mental connection between the idea of prison and the idea of picking pockets. And we know what the idea is. We can say why we take liberty from a man who takes liberties. But we cannot say why an egg can turn into a chicken any more than we can say why a bear could turn into a fairy prince. As IDEAS, the egg and the chicken are further off from each other than the bear and the prince; for no egg in itself suggests a chicken, whereas some princes do suggest bears. Granted, then, that certain transformations do happen, it is essential that we should regard them in the philosophic manner of fairy tales, not in the unphilosophic manner of science and the "Laws of Nature." It is not a "law," for we do not understand its general formula. It is not a necessity, for though we can count on it happening practically, we have no right to say that it must always happen. It is no argument for unalterable law (as Huxley fancied) that we count on the ordinary course of things. We do not count on it; we bet on it. We risk the remote possibility of a miracle as we do that of a poisoned pancake or a world-destroying comet. We leave it out of account, not because it is a miracle, and therefore an impossibility, but because it is a miracle, and therefore an exception. All the terms used in the science books, "law," "necessity," "order," "tendency," and so on, are really unintellectual, because they assume an inner synthesis, which we do not possess. The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, "charm," "spell," "enchantment." They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. I deny altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical....It is the only way I can express in words my clear and definite perception that one thing is quite distinct from another; that there is no logical connection between flying and laying eggs. It is the man who talks about "a law" that he has never seen who is the mystic. Nay, the ordinary scientific man is strictly a sentimentalist. He is a sentimentalist in this essential sense, that he is soaked and swept away by mere associations. He has so often seen birds fly and lay eggs that he feels as if there must be some dreamy, tender connection between the two ideas, whereas there is none. A forlorn lover might be unable to dissociate the moon from lost love; so the materialist is unable to dissociate the moon from the tide. In both cases there is no connection, except that one has seen them together. A sentimentalist might shed tears at the smell of apple-blossom, because, by a dark association of his own, it reminded him of his boyhood. So the materialist professor (though he conceals his tears) is yet a sentimentalist, because, by a dark association of his own, apple-blossoms remind him of apples." G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy.Clive Hayden_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

---Rob: "As far as I know, “nothing” is not a term of art in physics." ---Gaz: "– actually, in physics, 'nothing' is very complex." Rob consult with Gaz. In any case, we are not talking about physics, we are talking about the metaphysical realities that underlie physics, that is, the philosophical foundations of science. Science does not and cannot stand on its own, meaning that it conforms to the first principles of right reason and finds its legitimacy in them. Thus, the statement "from nothing, nothing comes," or its semantic equivalent "something cannot come from nothing" is a philosophical formulation that, more than anything else, defines the logic of science. In spite of all these protests to the contrary, everyone knows what "nothing" means. The most profound believers like Aquinas knew what it meant and the most cynical doubters like Hume knew what it meant. Contemporary physicists and theologians know what it means. Even Richard Dawkins knows what it means. To claim otherwise is to avoid reasoned dialogue as a means of escaping reason's consequences, namely the dreaded first cause that cannot reasonably be denied.StephenB_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

Gaz, I think you missed the impact of my definition of optimum design: "...the “best” design for any species would be to become immune to any environmental pressure that might impact their survival." This definition encompass everything you mentioned. The conclusion remains that a mind or minds ultimately set the criteria by which design are measured. Even my definition above does just that.mullerpr_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply