On God and Science
kalki33...@lakes.trenton.sc.us
ON GOD AND SCIENCE
by Sadaputa Dasa
(c) 1992 The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
Used by permission.
In a recent book review in Scientific American, Harvard evolutionist
Stephen Jay Gould points out that many scientists see no contradiction
between traditional religious beliefs and the world view of modern
science. Noting that many evolutionists have been devout Christians, he
concludes, "Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the
science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious
beliefs -- and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the
two great realms of nature's factuality and the source of human morality
do not strongly overlap."[1]
The question of whether or not science and religion are compatible
frequently comes up, and Gould himself points out that he is dealing
with it for the "umpteenth millionth time." It is a question to which
people are prone to give muddled answers. Definitions of God and God's
modes of action in the world seem highly elastic, and the desire to
combine scientific theories with religious doctrines has impelled many
sophisticated people to stretch both to the limit. In the end, something
has to give.
To help us locate the snapping point, let's look at what a few
scientists have said about God.
Dr. John A. O'Keefe, a NASA astronomer and a practicing Catholic, has
said, "Among biologists, the feeling has been since Darwin that all of
the intricate craftsmanship of life is an accident, which arose because
of the operations of natural selection on the chemicals of the earth's
shell. This is quite true...."[2]
O'Keefe accepts that life developed on earth entirely through physical
processes of the kind envisioned by Darwin. He stresses, however, that
many features of the laws of physics have just the right values to allow
for life as we know it. He concludes from this that God created the
universe for man to live in -- more precisely, God did this at the
moment of the Big Bang, when the universe and its physical laws sprang
out of nothing.
To support this idea, O'Keefe quotes Pope Pius XII, who said in his
address to the Pontifical Academy of Science in 1951:
In fact, it would seem that present-day science, with one
sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded
in bearing witness to the primordial Fiat lux ["Let there be
light"] uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there
burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the
particles of chemical elements split and formed into millions of
galaxies.[3]
Now this might seem a reasonable union of religion and science. God
creates the universe in a brief moment; then everything runs according
to accepted scientific principles. Of the universe's
fifteen-billion-year history, the first tiny fraction of a second is to
be kept aside as sacred ground, roped off from scientific scrutiny. Will
scientists agree not to trespass on this sacred territory?
Certainly not. Stephen Hawking, holder of Issac Newton's chair at
Cambridge University, once attended a conference on cosmology organized
by Jesuits in the Vatican. The conference ended with an audience with
the Pope. Hawking recalls:
He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the
universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the
big bang itself because that was the moment of creation and
therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did not know
the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference --
the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary,
which means that it had no beginning, no moment of creation.[4]
Whether or not Hawking's theory wins acceptance, this episode shows that
science cannot allow any aspect of objective reality to lie outside its
domain. We can get further insight into this by considering the views of
Owen Gingerich of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. In a
lecture on modern cosmogony and Biblical creation, Gingerich also
interpreted the Big Bang as God's act of creation. He went on to say
that we are created in the image of God and that within us lies a
"divine creative spark, a touch of the infinite consciousness, and
conscience."[5]
What is this "divine spark"? Gingerich's words suggest that it is
spiritual and gives rise to objectively observable behavior involving
conscience. But mainstream science rejects the idea of a nonphysical
conscious entity that influences matter. Could "divine spark" be just
another name for the brain, with its behavioral programming wired in by
genetic and cultural evolution? If this is what Gingerich meant, he
certainly chose misleading words to express it.
Freeman Dyson of Princeton's Institute for Advanced Studies arrived at
ideas similar to those of Gingerich, but from a non-Christian
perspective.
I do not claim that the architecture of the universe proves the
existence of God. I claim only that the architecture of the
universe is consistent with the hypothesis that mind plays an
essential role in its functioning....Some of us may be willing
to entertain the hypothesis that there exists a universal mind
or world soul which underlies the manifestations of mind that we
observe.... The existence of a world soul is a question that
belongs to religion and not to science.[6]
Dyson fully accepts Darwin's theory of chance variation and natural
selection. But he also explicitly grants mind an active role in the
universe: "Our consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried
along by chemical events in our brains, but an active agent forcing the
molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and
another."[7] He also feels that the universe may, in a sense, have known
we were coming and made preparations for our arrival.[8]
Dyson is verging on scientific heresy, and he cannot escape from this
charge simply by saying he is talking about religion and not science.
Quantum mechanics ties together chance and the conscious observer. Dyson
uses this as a loophole through which to introduce mind into the
phenomena of nature. But if random quantum events follow quantum
statistics as calculated by the laws of physics, then mind has no choice
but to go along with the flow as a passive epiphenomenon. And if mind
can make quantum events follow different statistics, then mind violates
the laws of physics. Such violations are rejected not only by physicists
but also by evolutionists, who definitely do not envision mind-generated
happenings playing any significant role in the origin of species.
It would seem that O'Keefe, Gingerich, and Dyson are advancing religious
ideas that are scientifically unacceptable. Unacceptable because they
propose an extra-scientific story for events that fall in the chosen
domain of science: the domain of all real phenomena.
To see what is scientifically acceptable, let us return to the remarks
of Stephen Jay Gould. In his review in Scientific American, Gould says,
"Science treats factual reality, while religion struggles with human
morality."[9] We can compare this to a statement by the eminent
theologian Rudolph Bultmann: "The idea of God is imperative, not
indicative; ethical and not factual."[10]
The point Gould and Bultmann make is that God has nothing to do with
facts in the real world. God is involved not with what is but what ought
to be, not with the phenomena of the world but people's ethical and
moral values.
Of course, a spoken or written statement of what ought to be is part of
what is. So if God is out of what is, He cannot be the source of
statements about what ought to be. These must simply be human
statements, and so must all statements about God. As it's put by Don
Cupitt, Cambridge philosopher of religion, "There is no longer anything
out there for faith to correspond to, so the only test of faith now is
the way it works out in life. The objects of faith, such as God, are
seen as guiding spiritual ideals we live by, and not as beings."[11]
This may sound like atheism, and so it is. But we shouldn't stop here.
Human religious activity is part of the factual world, and so it also
lies within the domain of science. While religious people "struggle with
morality," inquisitive scientists struggle to explain man's religious
behavior --unique in the animal kingdom-- in terms of the Darwinian
theory of evolution. This was foreshadowed by a remark made by Darwin
himself in his early notes: "Love of the deity effect of organization,
oh you materialist!"[12] Religious ideas, including love of God, must
arise from the structure and conditioning of the brain, and these in
turn must arise through genetic and cultural evolution. Darwin himself
never tried to develop these ideas extensively, but in recent years
sociobiologists such as Edward O. Wilson have.[13]
So is the science of Darwinism fully compatible with conventional
religious beliefs? That depends on one's conventions. If by God you mean
a real spiritual being who controls natural phenomena, even to a slight
degree, then Darwinism utterly rejects your idea -- not because science
empirically disproves it, but because the idea goes against the
fundamental scientific program of explaining all phenomena through the
laws of physics. Religious beliefs are compatible with Darwinism only if
they hold that God is simply a human idea having something to do with
moral imperatives. But if this is what you believe, then instead of
having religious beliefs, you have "scientific" beliefs about religion.
Judging from the theistic ideas of O'Keefe, Gingerich, and Dyson, many
far-from-stupid scientists do believe in God and Darwinism. But in their
efforts to combine truly incompatible ideas, they succumb to enormously
muddled thinking. And so they commit scientific heresy in spite of
themselves. If one is at all interested in knowledge of God, one should
recognize that such knowledge is not compatible with mainstream science,
and in particular not with Darwinism.
REFERENCES
[1] Gould, Stephen Jay, "Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge," Scientific
American, July 1992, p. 119.
[2] Jastrow, Robert, God and the Astronomer, NY: Warner Books, Inc.,
1978, p. 138.
[3] Jastrow, Ibid., pp. 141-2.
[4] Hawking, Stephen, A Brief History of Time, NY: Bantam Books, 1988,
p. 116.
[5] Gingerich, Owen, "Let There Be Light: Modern Cosmogony and Biblical
Creation," an abridgement of the Dwight Lecture given at the
University of Penna. in 1982, pp. 9-10.
[6] Dyson, Freeman, Disturbing the Universe, NY: Harper & Row, 1979, pp.
251-52.
[7] Dyson, Ibid., p. 249.
[8] Dyson, Ibid., p. 250.
[9] Gould, Ibid., p. 120
[10] Cupitt, Don, Only Human, London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1985, p. 212.
[11] Cupitt, Ibid., p. 202.
[12] Paul H. Barrett, et al., eds., Charles Darwin's Notebooks,
1836-1844, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987, p. 291.
[13] Wilson, Edward O., On Human Nature, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1978.
END OF ARTICLE
Sadaputa Dasa (Richard L. Thompson) earned his Ph.D. in mathematics from
Cornell University. He is the author of several books, of which the most
recent is Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy.
Posted by Kalki Dasa for Back to Godhead
-------------------------------------------------------
| Don't forget to chant: Hare Krishna Hare Krishna |
| Krishna Krishna Hare Hare |
| Hare Rama Hare Rama |
| Rama Rama Hare Hare |
| |
| Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA |
| (kalki33!ka...@lakes.trenton.sc.us) |
-------------------------------------------------------
Kent Sandvik
wrote:
> Judging from the theistic ideas of O'Keefe, Gingerich, and Dyson, many
> far-from-stupid scientists do believe in God and Darwinism. But in their
> efforts to combine truly incompatible ideas, they succumb to enormously
> muddled thinking. And so they commit scientific heresy in spite of
> themselves. If one is at all interested in knowledge of God, one should
> recognize that such knowledge is not compatible with mainstream science,
> and in particular not with Darwinism.
Wouldn't their problems be solved if they left out God from the equation?
Sometimes it's hard to see the trees in the forest. I still don't see
the need to mix in metaphysics and religion into mainstream science.
I do see the need of some religious sects to do this mix-in, mostly
to justify their beliefs, however. In other words we are dealing
with an *artificial* problem.
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ks...@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
"Don't just do something! Stand there!" -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Jon Livesey
>
> O'Keefe accepts that life developed on earth entirely through physical
> processes of the kind envisioned by Darwin. He stresses, however, that
> many features of the laws of physics have just the right values to allow
> for life as we know it. He concludes from this that God created the
> universe for man to live in -- more precisely, God did this at the
> moment of the Big Bang, when the universe and its physical laws sprang
> out of nothing.
Or, out of many alternative Universes, we happen to be in the one
whose physical laws have the right chracteristics for us to be alive.
jon.
Lionel Tun
Hahahahaha!
--
________ Lionel Tun, lio...@cs.city.ac.uk ________
/ /_ __/\ Computer Vision Group /\ \__ _\
/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
\___\_\_\/ 071-477 8000 ext 3889 \/___/_/_/
Matt Wigdahl
>
>Hahahahaha!
Can someone tell me where to find the forTun program? I don't think I
can make it through break without a daily dose of this type of reasoned
eloquence.
Matt Wigdahl
wig...@dragon.unl.edu
James G. Acker
This was a thought-provoking article, Kalki. Thank you for posting it.
kalki33!sys...@lakes.trenton.sc.us wrote:
: ON GOD AND SCIENCE
:
: by Sadaputa Dasa
:
: (c) 1992 The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
: Used by permission.
:
[introductory material deleted]
: modes of action in the world seem highly elastic, and the desire to
: combine scientific theories with religious doctrines has impelled many
: sophisticated people to stretch both to the limit. In the end, something
: has to give.
I single this statement out as being very accurate. Science
and religion should not be combined. It is surprising that those
individuals quoted below seem to be attempting to do it.
: To help us locate the snapping point, let's look at what a few
: scientists have said about God.
:
: Dr. John A. O'Keefe, a NASA astronomer and a practicing Catholic, has
: said, "Among biologists, the feeling has been since Darwin that all of
: the intricate craftsmanship of life is an accident, which arose because
: of the operations of natural selection on the chemicals of the earth's
: shell. This is quite true...."[2]
:
: O'Keefe accepts that life developed on earth entirely through physical
: processes of the kind envisioned by Darwin. He stresses, however, that
: many features of the laws of physics have just the right values to allow
: for life as we know it. He concludes from this that God created the
: universe for man to live in -- more precisely, God did this at the
: moment of the Big Bang, when the universe and its physical laws sprang
: out of nothing.
There's much to chew on here and below, and I dislike long posts.
The above is one statement of the "anthropic principle". Interpreting the
same data, I can't draw the same conclusion. What I prefer to say is:
A. The evidence points to the occurrence of a "Big Bang".
B. The properties of the Big Bang gave rise to the Universe
in which we exist.
C. Our existence is inherently bound to the properties of this
Universe.
D. Science cannot posit a cause of the Big Bang (though Hawking
has attempted/is attempting to do so). Science can posit that the
Big Bang occurred. At this point, those with a religious leaning, such
as myself, can BELIEVE (not prove or conclude) that God was the motive
force for the Big Bang, and the creation of the Universe.
More in the next post.
Jim Acker
jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
James G. Acker
Kalki.
kalki33!sys...@lakes.trenton.sc.us wrote:
: ON GOD AND SCIENCE
:
: by Sadaputa Dasa
:
: (c) 1992 The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
: Used by permission.
:
[intro and O'Keefe quotes deleted]
: To support this idea, O'Keefe quotes Pope Pius XII, who said in his
: address to the Pontifical Academy of Science in 1951:
:
: In fact, it would seem that present-day science, with one
: sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded
: in bearing witness to the primordial Fiat lux ["Let there be
: light"] uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there
: burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the
: particles of chemical elements split and formed into millions of
: galaxies.[3]
:
: Now this might seem a reasonable union of religion and science. God
: creates the universe in a brief moment; then everything runs according
: to accepted scientific principles. Of the universe's
: fifteen-billion-year history, the first tiny fraction of a second is to
: be kept aside as sacred ground, roped off from scientific scrutiny. Will
: scientists agree not to trespass on this sacred territory?
Interesting tone Sadaputa takes here. I can't figure out if he
thinks science should not attempt to explain this, or if he is
ridiculing attempts to do so. CERTAINLY science should address the issue.
But any scientific theory of this event shouldn't bring God in as an
operative agent.
: Certainly not. Stephen Hawking, holder of Issac Newton's chair at
: Cambridge University, once attended a conference on cosmology organized
: by Jesuits in the Vatican. The conference ended with an audience with
: the Pope. Hawking recalls:
:
: He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the
: universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the
: big bang itself because that was the moment of creation and
: therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did not know
: the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference --
: the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary,
: which means that it had no beginning, no moment of creation.[4]
:
: Whether or not Hawking's theory wins acceptance, this episode shows that
: science cannot allow any aspect of objective reality to lie outside its
: domain.
Is Sadaputa Dasa saying that science should allow an aspect
of objective reality to lie outside its domain? If it is "objective
reality" (which requires a definition), I believe it falls into the
categories of what science can consider.
BTW, is there anyone that can explain (in ludicrously simple
terms) what Hawking's theory means? If there was a Big Bang, doesn't
that indicate at least that at one time there was no matter in the
cosmos, and that at a definable moment matter came into existence?
I make no claims of being a cosmologist.
More on my hero (Gingerich) next.
Jim Acker
jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
James G. Acker
kalki33!sys...@lakes.trenton.sc.us wrote:
: ON GOD AND SCIENCE
:
: by Sadaputa Dasa
:
: (c) 1992 The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
: Used by permission.
[intro, comments from O'Keefe, Pope Pius, and Hawking deleted]
: Owen Gingerich of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. In a
: lecture on modern cosmogony and Biblical creation, Gingerich also
: interpreted the Big Bang as God's act of creation. He went on to say
: that we are created in the image of God and that within us lies a
: "divine creative spark, a touch of the infinite consciousness, and
: conscience."[5]
:
: What is this "divine spark"? Gingerich's words suggest that it is
: spiritual and gives rise to objectively observable behavior involving
: conscience. But mainstream science rejects the idea of a nonphysical
: conscious entity that influences matter. Could "divine spark" be just
: another name for the brain, with its behavioral programming wired in by
: genetic and cultural evolution? If this is what Gingerich meant, he
: certainly chose misleading words to express it.
This is absolutely beautiful writing by Sadaputa. First of all,
Gingerich, who basically said that science and religion should not cross
borders at the Washington Cathedral Conference on Origins, does come
quite close to the borders in his statement. Sadaputa plays on the
implication that "objectively observable behavior involving conscience"
is possible. His (Sadaputa's) statement implies that conscience is an
inherent property of the brain, that is, there is a section of the brain
that controls "conscience", just as there are areas devoted to the senses
of smell and hearing. Conscience, however, is a product of moral training
and is therefore a learned behavior, and not an inherent "wired-in" property.
Thus, the "divine spark" lies at a level more fundamental than where
science could find it, and being a nonphysical entity, the "spark" does not
influence matter.
Assumption: The "divine spark" is observable, just like the
proof of the bottom quark, by interaction with matter (neurons and synapses).
Implication: Given enough evidence, the behavior and existence of
the "divine spark" could be proven.
Implication #2: A connection between the "divine spark" and God
can be shown, hence, God is proven scientifically to exist. QED.
AS faith relies on the evidence of things unseen, and by this
description the "divine spark" can be "seen", were it provable, it would
not be related to my God. According to the Bible, the existence of God
cannot be proven scientifically.
: Freeman Dyson of Princeton's Institute for Advanced Studies arrived at
: ideas similar to those of Gingerich, but from a non-Christian
: perspective.
:
: I do not claim that the architecture of the universe proves the
: existence of God. I claim only that the architecture of the
: universe is consistent with the hypothesis that mind plays an
: essential role in its functioning....Some of us may be willing
: to entertain the hypothesis that there exists a universal mind
: or world soul which underlies the manifestations of mind that we
: observe.... The existence of a world soul is a question that
: belongs to religion and not to science.[6]
Note Dyson's final statement, which Sadaputa chooses to ignore.
:
: Dyson fully accepts Darwin's theory of chance variation and natural
: selection. But he also explicitly grants mind an active role in the
: universe: "Our consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried
: along by chemical events in our brains, but an active agent forcing the
: molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and
: another."[7] He also feels that the universe may, in a sense, have known
: we were coming and made preparations for our arrival.[8]
Dyson's quotes here are pretty amazing! I don't think that
he's right -- I think consciousness is a product of electrochemical
interactions in our brains. But this thing about "choice" is troubling,
because (example, activating an old memory) I seem to affect the quantum
state of molecular complexes in my brain.
But wait! I can affect the quantum state of any molecule I want.
Just put it in the path of a laser tuned to the right frequency, and it'll
jump states and emit photons. So, consciousness does affect quantum
states. Internally and externally.
Tough nut, though. Take it up, anyone.
: Dyson is verging on scientific heresy, and he cannot escape from this
: charge simply by saying he is talking about religion and not science.
: Quantum mechanics ties together chance and the conscious observer. Dyson
: uses this as a loophole through which to introduce mind into the
: phenomena of nature. But if random quantum events follow quantum
: statistics as calculated by the laws of physics, then mind has no choice
: but to go along with the flow as a passive epiphenomenon. And if mind
I think the key word here is "random". Sadaputa is implying that
the entire molecular framework of the brain operates randomly, according to
the laws of quantum physics. If I read his implication correctly, he's
wrong. The primary nature of brain function is electrochemical, and not
quantum mechanical. It therfore operates according to rules which are
much more stringent than quantum statistics.
Damn, Sadaputa is a good writer!
(I inadvertently deleted the last part of the paragraph. Sorry.)
: It would seem that O'Keefe, Gingerich, and Dyson are advancing religious
: ideas that are scientifically unacceptable. Unacceptable because they
: propose an extra-scientific story for events that fall in the chosen
: domain of science: the domain of all real phenomena.
Decide for yourself. Sadaputa is real good at making it seem so.
: of Stephen Jay Gould. In his review in Scientific American, Gould says,
: "Science treats factual reality, while religion struggles with human
: morality."[9] We can compare this to a statement by the eminent
: theologian Rudolph Bultmann: "The idea of God is imperative, not
: indicative; ethical and not factual."[10]
:
: The point Gould and Bultmann make is that God has nothing to do with
: facts in the real world. God is involved not with what is but what ought
: to be, not with the phenomena of the world but people's ethical and
: moral values.
Sadaputa's next sentence is a hum-dinger:
: Of course, a spoken or written statement of what ought to be is part of
: what is.
Whoa! I deliberately isolated this sentence. Sadaputa's
statement is true. However, the "spoken or written statement of what
ought to be" nonetheless remains theoretical and conjectural.
So if God is out of what is, He cannot be the source of
: statements about what ought to be. These must simply be human
: statements, and so must all statements about God.
All of what has been written, interpreted, and spoken about God
are necessarily human statements. What about prophets? God may have
given them the message, but the words were from a human being.
As it's put by Don
: Cupitt, Cambridge philosopher of religion, "There is no longer anything
: out there for faith to correspond to, so the only test of faith now is
: the way it works out in life. The objects of faith, such as God, are
: seen as guiding spiritual ideals we live by, and not as beings."[11]
Faith is the evidence of things not seen. God can still be
a being, BUT we _cannot prove_ his existence as a being. Only faith
allows us to believe it is so.
: This may sound like atheism, and so it is.
Cupitt's comment, taken out of context, would appear to be a comment
on the state of the world and not science. Let's go see.
I checked the reference, "Only Human". It doesn't give much
contextual information. My guess is that it's a discussion of secular
humanism.
But we shouldn't stop here.
: Human religious activity is part of the factual world, and so it also
: lies within the domain of science. While religious people "struggle with
: morality," inquisitive scientists struggle to explain man's religious
: behavior --unique in the animal kingdom-- in terms of the Darwinian
: theory of evolution.
Giving Sadaputa every benefit of the doubt, I think he's
stretching real far for this one. Is anybody seriously suggesting that
there's an adaptive significance to religious behavior?
Humans ARE unique in the animal kingdom; our mental capacity
is evidence of that. That religious behavior, among other behaviors
(like composition of music) should arise from the evolved mental
capacity is not surprising. There is undoubtedly an adaptive significance
to increased mental capacity.
This was foreshadowed by a remark made by Darwin
: himself in his early notes: "Love of the deity effect of organization,
: oh you materialist!"[12]
Another interesting sentence:
Religious ideas, including love of God, must
: arise from the structure and conditioning of the brain, and these in
: turn must arise through genetic and cultural evolution.
Anytime somebody says "must", be wary. Do religious ideas
arise from the structure of the brain? I seriously doubt it -- correct
me if I'm wrong. From the conditioning of the brain? If "conditioning"
means "learning", then I'd agree with that. Did the structure of the
brain arise from cultural evolution (parsing the implications)? No no no
no no...
Darwin himself
: never tried to develop these ideas extensively, but in recent years
: sociobiologists such as Edward O. Wilson have.[13]
Another name to add to my reading list. Darn.
: So is the science of Darwinism fully compatible with conventional
: religious beliefs? That depends on one's conventions. If by God you mean
: a real spiritual being who controls natural phenomena, even to a slight
: degree, then Darwinism utterly rejects your idea -- not because science
: empirically disproves it, but because the idea goes against the
: fundamental scientific program of explaining all phenomena through the
: laws of physics.
Wait a minute! When did Darwinism get mixed in with physics?
It is true that the fundamental scientific program is to
explain all phenomena through the laws of physics. Now, can God the
Entity interact with natural phenomena? If He could, science would
not be able to prove it.
It is also true that science rejects all non-natural explanations
for observable phenomenon. Tell me something I don't know, Sadaputa.
Religious beliefs are compatible with Darwinism only if
: they hold that God is simply a human idea having something to do with
: moral imperatives. But if this is what you believe, then instead of
: having religious beliefs, you have "scientific" beliefs about religion.
My religious beliefs are not compatible with Darwinism. I have
Darwinism over on one side, and my religious faith on the other. In
terms of one explaining the other, they are separate and unequal.
Therefore, my faith in God is not affected by Darwinism/
punctuated equilibrium/RNA world, etc.
: Judging from the theistic ideas of O'Keefe, Gingerich, and Dyson, many
: far-from-stupid scientists do believe in God and Darwinism. But in their
: efforts to combine truly incompatible ideas, they succumb to enormously
: muddled thinking.
Sadly (Sadaputaly?) he's probably right. However, they aren't
the only ones. ANYBODY who tries to do this has problems -- me too!
And so they commit scientific heresy in spite of
: themselves. If one is at all interested in knowledge of God, one should
: recognize that such knowledge is not compatible with mainstream science,
: and in particular not with Darwinism.
The incompatibility is very evident. I congratulate Sadaputa
on his writing skills and his acceptable conclusions. I also commend
Kalki for posting this article.
Conclusion: Science and religion don't mix. Any attempt to do
so will fail. On any level.
Jim Acker
jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
: REFERENCES
James Davis Nicoll
Why is the contribution to this thread so lacking in commentary
from intelligent replicating patterns not possible under the present
set of physical laws?
James Nicoll
Daniel A Ashlock
Very high potential barriers in the way and lack of an internet
connection, obviously. More seriously I thought that the question
of other universes with their own physical laws was wide open and
pretty worthless (for lack of observations).
James G. Acker
: > Why is the contribution to this thread so lacking in commentary
: > from intelligent replicating patterns not possible under the present
: > set of physical laws?
: >
: > James Nicoll
:
: Very high potential barriers in the way and lack of an internet
: connection, obviously. More seriously I thought that the question
: of other universes with their own physical laws was wide open and
: pretty worthless (for lack of observations).
:
: Dan
: Dan...@IASTATE.EDU
Ask Alan Guth, who has proposed a way of making one. Requires
a lot of energy, though.
Also, Asimov's novel "The Gods Themselves" is a real good
take-off on this idea.
Jim Acker
jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
James Davis Nicoll
>: > from intelligent replicating patterns not possible under the present
>: > set of physical laws?
Also, why is the universe's inappropriateness for the nigh-infinite
array of currently impossible events and phenomina not considered as
worthy of a 'principal' (akin to the anthropic) as events which did
occur?
James Nicoll
Herb Huston
As a spoof a few years ago, there was an IBM product announcement of Virtual
Universe, a successor to their Virtual Machine operating system. I suppose
that the console would be some sort of Graphic Omniscient Device. According
to the announcement, IBM would be marketing a virtual universe in which light
could travel between any two points instantaneously. This would, of course,
solve most performance problems. Alas, VU never became available.
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@access.digex.com
J. Michael Tisdel
Ah-ha! Lionel has gone away for the Christmas season & has left forTun
running with a usenet front end. So, we can see his mindless drivel all
through the holidays.
Or did he ever exist? Did someone write a proto-forTun that we've been
conversing with all this time? It would explain:
o repetitive arguments (starting at the top of the list)
o periods of no posting (program is down for one reason or another)
o sig file tests (trying out the new and improved version)
Oh well, its a throught
8)
--
J. Michael Tisdel \\\\\\\\\\\\ digi!jti...@uunet.uu.net
DSC Communications Corporation \\\\\\\\\\\\ jti...@digi.lonestar.org
1000 Coit Rd, MS 120, Plano Tx 75075 \\\\\\\\\\\\ jmti...@aol.com
"I want to lie ship-wrecked and comatose, drinking fresh mango juice."
Jon Livesey
Actually, I was tempted to add that in a Universe with different physical
laws, one might find commentary of new and interesting forms, but then I
started wondering if the ForTun progam would halt on that one, and somehow
I never got around to posting it.
jon.
Eric Sieferman
>>|>
>>|> Hahahahaha!
>>
>
>I laughed out of amazement and amusement at the tenacity of
>evolutionists in coming up with outrageous ideas in an
>effort to convince themselves of the non-creation of the
>world and of themselves.
Which "evolutionist" ideas do you find most outrageous?
What is your alternative explanation for these ideas?
As a Talented Amateur (tm), I have no professional attachment
to any theory of evolution, and I would gleefully
accept any alternative theory of creation which provides
a better explanation.
>I am a little sad too, that so much effort is used to avoid
>the Creator, when the same effort could equally be used to
>seek Him.
What saddens me is that the Creator has never accepted
my offer to drop by my house and discuss these matters.
Questions of Life and Death are too important
to be left to intermediaries and questionable
translations; I want to hear it from the source.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everything you know about God is wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Isaak
>I laughed out of amazement and amusement at the tenacity of
>evolutionists in coming up with outrageous ideas in an
>effort to convince themselves of the non-creation of the
>world and of themselves.
Yes, honesty isn't always pleasant and often takes a great deal of effort.
I, too, once marveled at the unlikelihood of everything in the
universe coming together in such a way to create me. Such an occurrance
seemed wildly improbable. Then I realized that, had all circumstances
not been as they were, I wouldn't be around to marvel, so questions of
probability are meaningless. The probability of my existence, given that
I exist, is exactly one, no matter what my theological assumption
>I am a little sad too, that so much effort is used to avoid
>the Creator, when the same effort could equally be used to
>seek Him.
Nothing has ever motivated me to avoid the Creator as much as
Fundamentalist religion. I still don't see how anyone could ever
have any respect for anyone or anything that killed people just
because they refused to worship him. Feeling the hate coming from so
many so-called Christians doesn't help, either.
--
Mark Isaak "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
is...@aurora.com generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Jon Livesey
|> In article <1gr8n...@fido.asd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >|> >
|> >|> >Or, out of many alternative Universes, we happen to be in the one
|> >|> >whose physical laws have the right chracteristics for us to be alive.
|> >|>
|> >|> Hahahahaha!
|> >
|>
|> coming up with outrageous ideas in an effort to convince themselves of the
|> non-creation of the world and of themselves.
Well, there are a couple of problems with what you say here. In the first
place, the notion that we may simply live in the particular Universe that is
set up right for us to exist is not really an "evolutionist" idea. It's just
an extension - and a highly speculative one - of the notion that this Universe
was created in a Big Bang. If this one was, then maybe many were, and maybe
they didn't all have the same physical laws, and so maybe some of them never
had life, but the one we are in obviously does, and we know that because we're
it.
Do I claim this is true? No, of course not, since I can never have evidence
one way or another. However, I do claim that as long as this is a *possibility*,
then the rival, extremely strong, claim that the configuration of our own
Universe is somehow miraculous and proof of the existence of a Creator, remains
unproven.
|>
|> I am a little sad too, that so much effort is used to avoid the Creator,
|> when the same effort could equally be used to seek Him.
If you really think this way - personally I think it's just a pose - then
the way for you to help is to make sensible postings that don't portray
yourself, and perhaps other Christians, as fools.
jon.
Kent Sandvik
Ashlock) wrote:
> Let me second a fellow poster: Care to post the theory of creation?
Yeah, I've asked about that one now for two years, and nobody from
the creation field has provided me with one. It's really sad, and
when there's a lack of a creation based theory (I deliberately left
out Hoyle :-) ), then the next best thing you could do is to sabotage
existing theories.
Daniel A Ashlock
sense of how to arrive at the truth (he even reasons the same way
Charles Martel did, but to considerably less noble ends).
In article <1992Dec18.1...@city.cs>, lio...@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:
> I laughed out of amazement and amusement at the tenacity of
> evolutionists in coming up with outrageous ideas in an
> effort to convince themselves of the non-creation of the
> world and of themselves.
It is amazing, I agree. You have to remember though that it took centuries
for science to grow to the point that it's practitioners could believe
things obviously counter to common sense just because they followed from
evidence. It's a hard thing to do. Point of order though: we are not
trying to convince ourselves the world wasn't created. If the evidence
pointed to a Creator we would tentatively accept Him. So:
[At this point I wrote a somewhat scatological paragraph,
but later thought better of it. My (sanitized) point was
that Lionel is again advanceing his claim that evolution is
driven by an Anti-Lionelist religious agenda. instead:]
Lionel, a priest of the Christian God of love and brotherhood has
repeatedly accused myself, my colleagues, my father, and friends of
long standing of being members of what is essentially a Satanist
Conspiracy, of scientific malfesance, of lying, and he has never
supported this view with evidence, correctly parse logic, or any
other valid rhetorical device. He has occasionally attempted to
use invalid rhetorical devices such as appeal to completely
unqualified authority or proof by modified invalid example or
disproof by citation of imaginary evil consequences.
> I am a little sad too, that so much effort is used to avoid
> the Creator, when the same effort could equally be used to
> seek Him.
You, [censored], have obviously renounced the standards
He set for you. Go directly to [censored]. Don't you see that your
conduct diminishes God in the eyes of (some of) you fellow men?
Can't you at least entertain the notion that belief in the Creator
and belief in you specific creation scenario are inequivalent?
Why doesn't it bother you that God falsified all this evidence?
TUNE IN NEXT WEEK FOR MORE THRILLING DETIALS, (brought to you
by SkyWay Kwik-Bright Armor Polish).
Let me second a fellow poster: Care to post the theory of creation?
Dan
Dan...@IASTATE.EDU
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
<>ever hear of the global villiage Tun?<>
Lionel Tun
>In article <1992Dec17.1...@city.cs>, lio...@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>|> In article <1gp0ri...@fido.asd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>|> >In article <Z2XuVB2w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!sys...@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>|> >>
>|> >> O'Keefe accepts that life developed on earth entirely through physical
>|> >> processes of the kind envisioned by Darwin. He stresses, however, that
>|> >> many features of the laws of physics have just the right values to allow
>|> >> for life as we know it. He concludes from this that God created the
>|> >> universe for man to live in -- more precisely, God did this at the
>|> >> moment of the Big Bang, when the universe and its physical laws sprang
>|> >> out of nothing.
>|> >
>|> >Or, out of many alternative Universes, we happen to be in the one
>|> >whose physical laws have the right chracteristics for us to be alive.
>|>
>|> Hahahahaha!
>
I laughed out of amazement and amusement at the tenacity of
evolutionists in coming up with outrageous ideas in an
effort to convince themselves of the non-creation of the
world and of themselves.
I am a little sad too, that so much effort is used to avoid
the Creator, when the same effort could equally be used to
seek Him.
--
Jon Livesey
|> >In article <Z2XuVB2w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!sys...@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
|> >>
|> >> O'Keefe accepts that life developed on earth entirely through physical
|> >> processes of the kind envisioned by Darwin. He stresses, however, that
|> >> many features of the laws of physics have just the right values to allow
|> >> for life as we know it. He concludes from this that God created the
|> >> universe for man to live in -- more precisely, God did this at the
|> >> moment of the Big Bang, when the universe and its physical laws sprang
|> >> out of nothing.
|> >
|> >Or, out of many alternative Universes, we happen to be in the one
|> >whose physical laws have the right chracteristics for us to be alive.
|>
|> Hahahahaha!
Would you care to be more specific?
I only ask because it seems to me that the last several postings
that I have seen from you have had no content except for random
expletives.
Now, I don't expect you to present evidence. I've yet to see
a creationist do that.
I don't expect to see you you post interpretations of evidence.
I figure Bob Bales has about the minimal IQ required for that,
and you are no Bob Bales.
I don't even expect to see you post references to interpretations
since that would involve you in looking something up.
I don't even expect you to tell us of someone who has posted a
reference to an interpretation of a piece of evidence.
But I do expect better than "Hahahahaha!"
jon.
Kent Sandvik
> >Or, out of many alternative Universes, we happen to be in the one
> >whose physical laws have the right chracteristics for us to be alive.
> Hahahahaha!
I assume you think that we live in a universe originally not suitable for
us to be alive in and God made sure that the universe was cleaned
up??? That would be fun, indeed.
Actually, the biggest problem a creationist has is that he/she
can never close the gap for the possibility that life has appeared
in a random manner. How small the propability is, *IT IS STILL THERE*.
In other words, a professional creator would have deliberately plugged
that hole to make sure sentient beings would understand that they
were actually created.
Kent Sandvik
one
> >|> >whose physical laws have the right chracteristics for us to be alive.
> >|>
> >|> Hahahahaha!
> >Would you care to be more specific?
>
> I laughed out of amazement and amusement at the tenacity of
> evolutionists in coming up with outrageous ideas in an
> effort to convince themselves of the non-creation of the
> world and of themselves.
I don't see anything really amusing about this one, we are alive
in this universe, i.e. the universe is capable of sustaining
carbon-oriented life forms. If this is outrageous, then there's
something most of us are missing. Maybe we are not really alive,
or that Plato was right?
> I am a little sad too, that so much effort is used to avoid
> the Creator, when the same effort could equally be used to
> seek him.
Note that the core problem is that whatever you do, you can't
avoid the issue of randomness that is capable of creating life
in a universe suited for the life process. If scientists could
someday even show that the meta-universe spawns off billions/trillions
of universes every second, then the status of random life forms
is more and more valid. Or then we have a creator that acts in
a random manner, hey that would be something really amusing, or
what?
James J. Lippard
>In article <1992Dec18.1...@city.cs> lio...@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>>I laughed out of amazement and amusement at the tenacity of
>>evolutionists in coming up with outrageous ideas in an
>>effort to convince themselves of the non-creation of the
>>world and of themselves.
>
>Yes, honesty isn't always pleasant and often takes a great deal of effort.
>
>I, too, once marveled at the unlikelihood of everything in the
>universe coming together in such a way to create me. Such an occurrance
>seemed wildly improbable. Then I realized that, had all circumstances
>not been as they were, I wouldn't be around to marvel, so questions of
>probability are meaningless. The probability of my existence, given that
>I exist, is exactly one, no matter what my theological assumption
This seems like a bad argument, to me. Suppose I'm put in front of a firing
squad of fifteen men. They all fire, but I don't die. I continue to
exist. By an argument analogous to what you've given, I shouldn't marvel
at my own continued existence or wonder how it happened--the probability
was one. But if, in fact, all fifteen men *missed* me, there is an unusual
fact there that requires some sort of explanation. The fact that if they
hadn't missed me, then I wouldn't be there to puzzle over my existence, does
*not* explain what is curious in this situation. Likewise, the fact of
life's existence requires some sort of explanation other than the supposed
"explanation" offered by the anthropic principle.
Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Eric Sotnak
}>>I, too, once marveled at the unlikelihood of everything in the
}>>universe coming together in such a way to create me. Such an occurrance
}>>seemed wildly improbable. Then I realized that, had all circumstances
}>>not been as they were, I wouldn't be around to marvel, so questions of
}>>probability are meaningless. The probability of my existence, given that
}>>I exist, is exactly one, no matter what my theological assumption
}>This seems like a bad argument, to me. Suppose I'm put in front of a firing
}>squad of fifteen men. They all fire, but I don't die. I continue to
}>exist. By an argument analogous to what you've given, I shouldn't marvel
}>at my own continued existence or wonder how it happened--the probability
}>was one. But if, in fact, all fifteen men *missed* me, there is an unusual
}>fact there that requires some sort of explanation. The fact that if they
}>hadn't missed me, then I wouldn't be there to puzzle over my existence, does
}>*not* explain what is curious in this situation. Likewise, the fact of
}>life's existence requires some sort of explanation other than the supposed
}>"explanation" offered by the anthropic principle.
Yet Mr. Isaac's observation was made in the context of discussing the
"Tunian" claim that, in effect, the probability of life existing in the
universe is so remarkably low that we must infer a supernatural agency to
have brought it all about. In your firing squad example, you might feel
that only divine protection could have prevented your death (thus far,
anyway), but the members of the firing squad would be more interested in why
their aim was off. A winner of the lottery who wonders how (against all
probability) s/he managed to win, would be making a mistake in inferring a
supernatural agency at work, although s/he would be justified in being
surprised. The probability of having won the lottery GIVEN that one has
already done so, is, indeed, 1. But the antecedent probability of winning
the lottery given only that one has bought a ticket (not, of course, qua
winning ticket) is 1 in 14 million (or something like that). The
explanation for winning the lottery is going to be that (as it would happen)
certain numbered ping-pong balls got selected which yielded a number
corresponding to the winning ticket. If the winner says that there must
have been divine intervention because it was so improbable that the winning
number would correspond to his/her ticket, s/he is making a kind of mistake
in judgment. Mr. Tun has made the mistake of claiming that since the
(antecedent) probability of life existing (or having come into existence) is
so low, supernatural agency must be involved. Another mistake in judgment.
--
********************************************************************
Eric Sotnak | One life.
es...@troi.cc.rochester.edu | One chance.
Stephen Doe
>In article <1gr8n...@fido.asd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec17.1...@city.cs>, lio...@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>>|> In article <1gp0ri...@fido.asd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>|> >In article <Z2XuVB2w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!sys...@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>>|> >>
>>|> >> O'Keefe accepts that life developed on earth entirely through physical
>>|> >> processes of the kind envisioned by Darwin. He stresses, however, that
>>|> >> many features of the laws of physics have just the right values to allow
>>|> >> for life as we know it. He concludes from this that God created the
>>|> >> universe for man to live in -- more precisely, God did this at the
>>|> >> moment of the Big Bang, when the universe and its physical laws sprang
>>|> >> out of nothing.
>>|> >
>>|> >Or, out of many alternative Universes, we happen to be in the one
>>|> >whose physical laws have the right chracteristics for us to be alive.
>>|>
>>|> Hahahahaha!
>>
>>Would you care to be more specific?
>
>I laughed out of amazement and amusement at the tenacity of
>evolutionists in coming up with outrageous ideas in an
>effort to convince themselves of the non-creation of the
>world and of themselves.
>
>I am a little sad too, that so much effort is used to avoid
>the Creator, when the same effort could equally be used to
>seek Him.
Now this is just plain silly. While the Many Worlds Hypothesis is one
way of interpreting quantum mechanics, I don't know of anyone who
would seriously use it "to convince themselves of the non-creation of
the world." Like your God, it's a conveniently non-disprovable
hypothesis, since we can't get information on anything happening
outside our universe. BTW, the idea is a response to the implications
of QM, *not* evolution. Evolutionary theory is just fine without the
Many Worlds Hypothesis.
SD
JONATHAN SCOTT GIBSON
>
>the creation field has provided me with one. It's really sad, and
>when there's a lack of a creation based theory (I deliberately left
>out Hoyle :-) ), then the next best thing you could do is to sabotage
>existing theories.
>
>-------------------
>Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ks...@apple.com)
>DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
>"Don't just do something! Stand there!" -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
>
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth
was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep;
and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then
God said, "Let ther be light"; and there was light. And God saw that
the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And
there was evening and there was morning, one day. Then God said, "Let
there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate
the waters from the waters." And God made the expanse, amd separated
the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were
above the expanse; and it was so. And God called the expanse heaven.
And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. Then God
said, "Let the wasters below the heavens be gathered into one place,
and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. And God called the dry
land earth, and the gathering of the water He called the seas; and God
saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let the earth sprout
vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after
their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"; and it was so. And the
earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind,
and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God
saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a
third day. Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the
heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs,
and for seasons,and for days and years; and let them be for light in
the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
And God made the two great light, the greater light to govern the
day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars
also. And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give
light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to
separate the light from the darkness; amd GOd saw that it was good.
And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. Then God
said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let
birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens." And
God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that
moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, amd every
winged bird after its kind; amd God saw that it was good. And God
blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters
in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth." And there was
evening and there was morning, a fifth day. Then God said, "Let the
earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and
creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was
so. And God made the beasts of the earth and their kind, and the
cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground
after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let Us
make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; amd let them rule
over the fish of the sea and over the birs of the sky and over the
cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that
creeps on the earth." And God created man in His own image, in the
image of God He created Him; male and female He created them. And God
blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and
fill the earth, subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over
the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the
earth." Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding
seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has
fruit tielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of
the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves
on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food';
and it was so. And God saw all that He had made, and beholf, it was
very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.
Quoted directly fom Genesis chapter 1 in the
New American Standard Bible.
That is the theory of Creation to whoever asked. Someone had
mentioned something about the fact that the world was created so
perfectly gave them the creeps or made them feel uncomfortable. The
thing is, it was not created perfectly; God did not make man as a
robot, He gave him freewill, to choose what to do. That was where the
fall of man comes in and that is where the idea of an imperfect world
comes in. The idea of Christianity has a lot of commitment in it;
commitment to a God that you can't see, in a book that is old but
inspired by this God, and commitment of one's life to this whole
belief. In this day and age, there is not much commitment. There
arso many families that are torn apart by divorce and who gets married
anymore, why not just have children? Former vice-president Quayle was
right in what he said about the family values of this country, they
have gone to pot. The reason it is so hard for everyone to believe in
Christianity is because it takes commitment to someone besides
themself, and that takes alot, for people to give up their selfish
ambitions.
--
Jonathan Scott Gibson
JS...@LEHIGH.EDU
BOX 479 X0264
Ray Ingles
>In article <ksand-191...@wintermute.apple.com>, ks...@apple.com (Kent Sand
>vik ) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec1...@IASTATE.EDU>, dan...@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
>>Ashlock) wrote:
>>> Let me second a fellow poster: Care to post the theory of creation?
>>Yeah, I've asked about that one now for two years, and nobody from
>>the creation field has provided me with one...
[long quote from Genesis deleted]
[irrelevant (to talk.origins) diatribe about present moral decay deleted]
> Jonathan Scott Gibson
> JS...@LEHIGH.EDU
Uh, no, actually, what you posted was a story. A *theory* make predictions.
A *scientific theory* makes *testable* predictions.
In order to convince me that what you posted was a theory, you (or someone)
should now detail, oh, three main predictions that this theory makes, and
the evidence that backs up those predictions having been fulfilled. 'Kay?
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles
ing...@engin.umich.edu
They said there'd be snow at Christmas; They said there'd be peace on Earth.
Halelujah Noel, be it Heaven or Hell; The Christmas we get we deserve.
-ELP, "I Believe in Father Christmas"
Jon Livesey
|> In article <ksand-191...@wintermute.apple.com>, ks...@apple.com (Kent Sand
|> vik ) writes:
|> >In article <1992Dec1...@IASTATE.EDU>, dan...@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
|> >Ashlock) wrote:
|> >> Let me second a fellow poster: Care to post the theory of creation?
|> >
|> >Yeah, I've asked about that one now for two years, and nobody from
|> >the creation field has provided me with one. It's really sad, and
|> >when there's a lack of a creation based theory (I deliberately left
|> >out Hoyle :-) ), then the next best thing you could do is to sabotage
|> >existing theories.
|> >
|> >Kent
|> >-------------------
|> >Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ks...@apple.com)
|> >DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
|> >"Don't just do something! Stand there!" -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
|> >
|> Well, the theory of creation goes like this:
Uh Huh. So what about peer review?
jon.
Steven Fisher
|>I laughed out of amazement and amusement at the tenacity of
|>evolutionists in coming up with outrageous ideas in an
|>effort to convince themselves of the non-creation of the
|>world and of themselves.
There is overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of evolution. You have
been asked *MANY TIMES* to provide evidence for your statements on t.o, but
you haven't. Put up or shut up.
|>I am a little sad too, that so much effort is used to avoid
|>the Creator, when the same effort could equally be used to
|>seek Him.
Once again, you go around insulting those of us who believe that the theory
of evolution describes the process that God used. I am a little sad too, that
so much effort is used to avoid the evidence *for* evolution by Lionel.
-steve
Don't forget to chant:
Lionel is an idiot;
Lionel is Dishonest;
Lionel is a moron.
kalki33...@lakes.trenton.sc.us
> One final attempt at addressing some of the points here.
> : ON GOD AND SCIENCE
> : by Sadaputa Dasa
> : (c) 1992 The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
> : Used by permission.
> [intro, comments from O'Keefe, Pope Pius, and Hawking deleted]
> : Owen Gingerich of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for
> Astrophysics. In a : lecture on modern cosmogony and Biblical
> creation, Gingerich also : interpreted the Big Bang as God's act of
> creation. He went on to say : that we are created in the image of
> God and that within us lies a : "divine creative spark, a touch of
> the infinite consciousness, and : conscience."[5]
> :
> : What is this "divine spark"? Gingerich's words suggest that it is
> : spiritual and gives rise to objectively observable behavior
> involving : conscience. But mainstream science rejects the idea of
> a nonphysical : conscious entity that influences matter. Could
> "divine spark" be just : another name for the brain, with its
> behavioral programming wired in by : genetic and cultural
> evolution? If this is what Gingerich meant, he : certainly chose
> misleading words to express it.
> This is absolutely beautiful writing by Sadaputa. First of
> all, Gingerich, who basically said that science and religion should
> not cross borders at the Washington Cathedral Conference on
> Origins, does come quite close to the borders in his statement.
> Sadaputa plays on the implication that "objectively observable
> behavior involving conscience" is possible.
Well, I can observe that I have a conscience. Therefore that conscience
is an "object" of my perception. It is objectively observable. I can
also observe that other persons behave in a way that matches my own when
I am having an "attack" of conscience. Therefore I conclude that others
have consciences too. They even tell me that they do. Is this not
scientific?
> His (Sadaputa's)
> statement implies that conscience is an inherent property of the
> brain, that is, there is a section of the brain that controls
> "conscience", just as there are areas devoted to the senses of
> smell and hearing.
Actually, Sadaputa is mentioning this explanation for conscience not
because he himself embraces it but because it is one possible
explanation for conscience that does not stem from nonphysical entities
such as "the divine spark." This whole article is meant to point out
that one can not extend the materialistic paradigm indefinitely, and if
one pretends to do so he will eventually contradict himself. Sadaputa
does not, of course, think that conscience (or consciousness) is caused
by neurological activity.
> Conscience, however, is a product of moral
> training and is therefore a learned behavior, and not an inherent
> "wired-in" property. Thus, the "divine spark" lies at a level more
> fundamental than where science could find it, and being a
> nonphysical entity, the "spark" does not influence matter.
But according to the materialistic paradigm, the propensity of humans to
"morally train" their children must have a basis in biology, chemistry
or physics, as must the propensity of children to exhibit "learned
behavior." Therefore the argument that conscience is "acquired, not
innate" just pushes the issue back a notch. One still must explain how a
bunch of molecules and cells operating solely under the laws of physics
and chemistry are feeling pangs of conscience, and knowing that they are
feeling them!
> Assumption: The "divine spark" is observable, just like
> the proof of the bottom quark, by interaction with matter (neurons
> and synapses).
> Implication: Given enough evidence, the behavior and
> existence of the "divine spark" could be proven.
> Implication #2: A connection between the "divine spark"
> and God can be shown, hence, God is proven scientifically to exist.
> QED.
> AS faith relies on the evidence of things unseen, and by
> this description the "divine spark" can be "seen", were it
> provable, it would not be related to my God. According to the
> Bible, the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically.
That depends on your definition of science, doesn't it? If science is
only the quantitative study of matter, then yes, the existence of God
can not be proven within science. But if science includes the study of
the entire field of perception, then if God is ever perceived, He must
necessarily be real, and if He is never or can never be perceived, then
there is no meaning or purpose in investigating Him, not even from the
standpoint of "faith."
Faith indeed "relies on the evidence of things unseen." But if those
things remain forever unseen, i.e. unperceived, then it would seem that
faith is useless, since one can never have any actual contact with the
object of one's faith. Faith must turn into certainty, into direct
knowledge, or it will be lost eventually. This is exactly what has
happened in Western civilization, since Western theologians have been
ineffective in providing methods of directly contacting God and instead
have developed a purely speculative, intellectual kind of theology.
That scientists have reacted with scorn to the eclectic concoctions and
academic exercises of Western theologians is understandable, given the
scientific drive for hard, perceivable evidence. However, the fact that
a large body of theologians are making statements about God without
really knowing Him is not proof that God does not exist. If even one man
could step forward with a bona fide method by which anyone could make
direct contect with the Lord, that should be sufficient to end all the
controversy. Of course, there is always the possibility that even if one
knows that God exists, he might not like the idea, and might therefore
prefer to pretend that God is a fiction. There are undoubtedly persons
who do this. After all, the existence of someone more powerful than
oneself is very unsettling to some people. Such people would certainly
try to avoid contact with God, even to the point of embracing atheism.
> : Freeman Dyson of Princeton's Institute for Advanced Studies
> arrived at : ideas similar to those of Gingerich, but from a
> non-Christian : perspective.
>.... The existence of a world soul is a question that :
> belongs to religion and not to science.[6]
>
> Note Dyson's final statement, which Sadaputa chooses to
> ignore.
Ignore? Hmmm, the whole article is about the impossibility of
maintaining any total separation between science and religion. If a
world soul exists, then certainly such an entity would play a role in
the functioning of the universe, and therefore it cannot be solely a
religious question.
> : Dyson fully accepts Darwin's theory of chance variation and
> natural : selection. But he also explicitly grants mind an active
> role in the : universe: "Our consciousness is not just a passive
> epiphenomenon carried : along by chemical events in our brains, but
> an active agent forcing the : molecular complexes to make choices
> between one quantum state and : another."[7] He also feels that the
> universe may, in a sense, have known : we were coming and made
> preparations for our arrival.[8]
>
> Dyson's quotes here are pretty amazing! I don't think that
> he's right -- I think consciousness is a product of electrochemical
> interactions in our brains. But this thing about "choice" is
> troubling, because (example, activating an old memory) I seem to
> affect the quantum state of molecular complexes in my brain.
> But wait! I can affect the quantum state of any molecule I
> want. Just put it in the path of a laser tuned to the right
> frequency, and it'll jump states and emit photons. So,
> consciousness does affect quantum states. Internally and
> externally.
> Tough nut, though. Take it up, anyone.
Yes, consciousness does affect matter! We can all see how a chain of
events, starting with our free will, can cause a change in the physical
universe. What is not as easily accepted is that consciousness can act
directly on matter although it is not matter itself. (Refer to the
quantum mechanical measurement problem about where to draw the line
between observer and observed).
> : Dyson is verging on scientific heresy, and he cannot escape from
> this : charge simply by saying he is talking about religion and not
> science. : Quantum mechanics ties together chance and the conscious
> observer. Dyson : uses this as a loophole through which to
> introduce mind into the : phenomena of nature. But if random
> quantum events follow quantum : statistics as calculated by the
> laws of physics, then mind has no choice : but to go along with the
> flow as a passive epiphenomenon. And if mind
>
> I think the key word here is "random". Sadaputa is
> implying that the entire molecular framework of the brain operates
> randomly, according to the laws of quantum physics. If I read his
> implication correctly, he's wrong. The primary nature of brain
> function is electrochemical, and not quantum mechanical. It
> therfore operates according to rules which are much more stringent
> than quantum statistics.
Well, again, you are pushing it back a notch, but the problem is still
there. According to modern (speculative) physics there is some sort of
unified quantum field that governs the interactions of all known forces.
If this quantum field operates in a manner similar to standard QED, then
the basic particle interactions must all be probabilistic, so that even
electromagnetic and gravitational forces are ultimately indeterminate in
principle. The existence of higher level systems (living organisms) that
exhibit highly non-random effects like consciousness and conscience must
therefore be due to some organizational principle as yet unknown to
science.
> Damn, Sadaputa is a good writer!
> (I inadvertently deleted the last part of the paragraph. Sorry.)
He's really a good scientist too. :-) I wish I was adequate to present
his thesis.
I had to stop here, because this is just sooooo long! I will forward
your review (all 3 of them) to the Bhaktivedanta Institute. They have
asked me to send them any interesting responses I get from these posts,
and yours are certainly some of the best!
Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa
-------------------------------------------------------
| Don't forget to chant: Hare Krishna Hare Krishna |
| Krishna Krishna Hare Hare |
| Hare Rama Hare Rama |
| Rama Rama Hare Hare |
| |
| Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA |
| (kalki33!ka...@lakes.trenton.sc.us) |
-------------------------------------------------------
Eli Chiprout
>In article <1992Dec20.0...@aurora.com>, is...@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes...
>>I, too, once marveled at the unlikelihood of everything in the
>>universe coming together in such a way to create me. Such an occurrance
>>seemed wildly improbable. Then I realized that, had all circumstances
>>not been as they were, I wouldn't be around to marvel, so questions of
>>probability are meaningless. The probability of my existence, given that
>>I exist, is exactly one, no matter what my theological assumption
>This seems like a bad argument, to me. Suppose I'm put in front of a firing
>squad of fifteen men. They all fire, but I don't die. I continue to
>exist. By an argument analogous to what you've given, I shouldn't marvel
>at my own continued existence or wonder how it happened--the probability
>was one. But if, in fact, all fifteen men *missed* me, there is an unusual
>fact there that requires some sort of explanation. The fact that if they
>hadn't missed me, then I wouldn't be there to puzzle over my existence, does
>*not* explain what is curious in this situation. Likewise, the fact of
>life's existence requires some sort of explanation other than the supposed
>"explanation" offered by the anthropic principle.
You are using analogy in your reasonin, and analogies are interesting for
pedagogical purposes only. Here is where the analogy breaks down.
In the case of a trained riffleman firing, I can make an educated guess as
to the chance of his hitting the target given the size of my body, the
weather conditions, his distance, etc. If that chance is high by my
reckoning and -- more importantly -- my experience, both personal and second
hand through reporting, and he misses, I might be surprised. If fifteen men
miss, I will surely require an explanation.
When you are discussing the universe, our personal experience, and the
experience of our peers are useless. What are the chances that I will come
into being given the universe at the big bang? Well, how can I answer that
if I do not know what the universe is besides my own miniscule part of it,
or what the chances of the counter event, i.e. my not existing, are. What I
judge to be an "unusual" event, is a valueless judgement, because I have not
observed very many "usual" events, i.e. universes that unfold with no life
ever arising.
The anthropic principle is very clever in this respect, although certainly not
a proof of anything. It simply says, that there could easily be many worlds,
before us, after us, besides us, that do not contain life. Since we could
not be part of those worlds, we are amazed at our unique existence. In fact,
if there was exactly one big bang and "gib gnab" (or big crunch) before us,
(with no life) our chance would be one in two for existing in a world. If
there were 100? or 100^100? The anthropic principle says that given the
possible infinite(very large) nature of the universe, our chance for existence
could be small, but when it happens, we will only be able to observe the
conditions that bring about life, not the (possibly much, much more probable)
conditions that will not allow life to exist.
Probability can be tricky in this respect. If I only observe my universe,
and by observing it, I verify that I am alive, then the chances for my existence
given my existence (i.e. <A|A> the chances of A given A) are 100%. However, the
probability of my existence given all possible conditions/universes/worlds
is meaningless, since according the the anthropic principle, I will never
be able to observe/count those other worlds (much less calculate the
possibility of their existence), in sharp contrast to the 15 riflemen.
>Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
>Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
>University of Arizona
>Tucson, AZ 85721
--
Eli Chiprout
Dept. of Electronics,
Carleton University, Canada
e...@doe.carleton.ca
Mickey Rowe
writes:
>Well, I can observe that I have a conscience. Therefore that conscience
>is an "object" of my perception.
You've already missed the boat here, Kalki. Why do you presuppose
that something that you perceive to be an "object" is a unified
quantity with objective reality? Perhaps you should find out more
about the problems with object classification. You can start with
some low level processing, like Ramachandran's studies of the
perception of illusory contours. Then you can look at some higher
level psychophysics by reading about Anne Triesman's work on "object"
perception. Then you can move up to higher level classification
schemes by studying Martha Farrah's work on "object" recognition in
normal vs. brain-damaged individuals.
Aw skip it, you'd have to actually learn something about the
fragmentary nature of "consciousness" if you went that far. You
wouldn't want to do that because it could destroy your entire world
view. Sorry to take up your time :-/
>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa
Mickey Rowe (ro...@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
P.S. I didn't bother to read the rest of Kalki's post... I don't want
to waste too much time on them, so forgive me if I fail to point out
any other howlers in this particular piece of work.
Daniel A Ashlock
In article <1992Dec21.0...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, js...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu
(JONATHAN SCOTT GIBSON) writes:
> [Genisis]
Thanks, but that isn't a theory. That is a piece of poetry. Try, for
example, to explain the observed genetic homology of organisims originally
classified an simillar on phenotypic gounds in term of your theory. You
will find the result unsatisfying to say the least.
So: could someone please give a theory of creation that explains 1%
or more of the things the theory of evolution explains?
Dan
Dan...@IASTATE.EDU
(see, no flames yet)
James J. Lippard
I can, and do, agree with everything you said without agreeing that
the anthropic principle explains the existence of life.
Mickey Rowe
lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
> I can, and do, agree with everything [Eric Sotnak
> (es...@troi.cc.rochester.edu) said in article
> <1992Dec20.2...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>] without agreeing
> that the anthropic principle explains the existence of life.
Would you agree, however, that the (im)probability arguments about why
things are such that "life" could form are uninformative? It seems
that that was the gist of the initial post to which you objected. I
believe it was Mark Isaak who wrote what you called "a bad argument".
Mark did not claim that any anthropic principle "explained life", only
that:
}>}>>I, too, once marveled at the unlikelihood of everything in the
}>}>>universe coming together in such a way to create me. Such an occurrance
}>}>>seemed wildly improbable. Then I realized that, had all circumstances
}>}>>not been as they were, I wouldn't be around to marvel, so questions of
}>}>>probability are meaningless. The probability of my existence, given that
}>}>>I exist, is exactly one, no matter what my theological assumption
If you agree with Eric, and your objection is merely that Mark hasn't
explained the existence of life, then I think you were a bit too
hasty. Mark didn't claim to explain the existance of life; he only
claimed that Lionel's statements about its probability of occurrence
were somewhat meaningless.
>Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Mickey Rowe (ro...@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
James G. Acker
I'm going to break this in two parts, to make it easier to
(burp) digest:
kalki33!sys...@lakes.trenton.sc.us wrote:
: jga...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
Discussing:
: > : ON GOD AND SCIENCE
: > : by Sadaputa Dasa
: > : (c) 1992 The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
: > : Used by permission.
:
: > [intro, comments from O'Keefe, Pope Pius, and Hawking deleted]
:
ARTICLE: > : Owen Gingerich of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for
: > Astrophysics. In a : lecture on modern cosmogony and Biblical
: > creation, Gingerich also : interpreted the Big Bang as God's act of
: > creation. He went on to say : that we are created in the image of
: > God and that within us lies a : "divine creative spark, a touch of
: > the infinite consciousness, and : conscience."[5]
: > :
: > : What is this "divine spark"? Gingerich's words suggest that it is
: > : spiritual and gives rise to objectively observable behavior
: > involving : conscience. But mainstream science rejects the idea of
: > a nonphysical : conscious entity that influences matter. Could
: > "divine spark" be just : another name for the brain, with its
: > behavioral programming wired in by : genetic and cultural
: > evolution? If this is what Gingerich meant, he : certainly chose
: > misleading words to express it.
:
ACKER: >This is absolutely beautiful writing by Sadaputa. First of
: > all, Gingerich, who basically said that science and religion should
: > not cross borders at the Washington Cathedral Conference on
: > Origins, does come quite close to the borders in his statement.
: > Sadaputa plays on the implication that "objectively observable
: > behavior involving conscience" is possible.
:
KALKI: Well, I can observe that I have a conscience. Therefore that conscience
: is an "object" of my perception. It is objectively observable. I can
: also observe that other persons behave in a way that matches my own when
: I am having an "attack" of conscience. Therefore I conclude that others
: have consciences too. They even tell me that they do. Is this not
: scientific?
ACKER: Mickey Rowe also made some valid comments on this topic, from
a different perspective. To address your comment directly -- no, what
you describe here is not scientific at all, it's strictly observation.
You aren't formulating theories or testing them. I'll help you out --
I grant that several questions could be addressed in a psychological
study of personal moral orientation, such as: How does it develop? What
is its initial manifestation in a child? How early? Are there cultural
patterns which define it? Is it perturbed by legal impairment (clearly
important in law)? Is it a function of right-hemisphere or left-hemisphere
activity (i.e. when confronted with a moral choice, does a brain
activity scan show more activity in the left- or right-hemispheres,
indicating the problem is more objective or more abstract)? Don't
forget to include controls and double-blind tests.
ACKER: > His (Sadaputa's)
: > statement implies that conscience is an inherent property of the
: > brain, that is, there is a section of the brain that controls
: > "conscience", just as there are areas devoted to the senses of
: > smell and hearing.
:
KALKI: Actually, Sadaputa is mentioning this explanation for conscience not
: because he himself embraces it but because it is one possible
: explanation for conscience that does not stem from nonphysical entities
: such as "the divine spark." This whole article is meant to point out
: that one can not extend the materialistic paradigm indefinitely, and if
: one pretends to do so he will eventually contradict himself. Sadaputa
: does not, of course, think that conscience (or consciousness) is caused
: by neurological activity.
ACKER: I don't think so. I have granted Sadaputa's writing talent
before... I think, by not defining conscience and yet implying that
it is amenable to investigation, he grants it status commensurate with
other brain functions which do _clearly_ produce objectively observable
phenomenon.
Interesting that you say Sadaputa does not think that "conscience
(or consciousness)" is caused by neurological activity. We
obviously do have competing theories -- I believe that consciousness is
caused by neurological activity. The anti-statement -- lack of
consciousness is caused by lack of neurological activity -- is easily
demonstrated by placing a plastic bag over one's head, tying it
tightly at the neck, and continuing to inhale. A post-mortem
examination will show no evidence of neurological activity or
consciousness.
ACKER: > Conscience, however, is a product of moral
: > training and is therefore a learned behavior, and not an inherent
: > "wired-in" property. Thus, the "divine spark" lies at a level more
: > fundamental than where science could find it, and being a
: > nonphysical entity, the "spark" does not influence matter.
:
KALKI: But according to the materialistic paradigm, the propensity of humans to
: "morally train" their children must have a basis in biology, chemistry
: or physics, as must the propensity of children to exhibit "learned
: behavior." Therefore the argument that conscience is "acquired, not
: innate" just pushes the issue back a notch.
***One still must explain how a
: bunch of molecules and cells operating solely under the laws of physics
: and chemistry are feeling pangs of conscience, and knowing that they are
: feeling them!***
ACKER: Point taken (denoted by ***). I have a very distinct feeling
we will remain at loggerheads at what constitutes "consciousness", not a
field in which I feel particularly qualified to address. You and t.o.
readers who are attempting to follow our debate (of which there are
regrettably few, I fear) might be interest to know that one or two
issues back of _Discover_ magazine had a cover story entitled "10 Great
Unanswered Questions of Science", and one of the 10 was "What is
Consciousness?" (Another was the origin of life, which is how I learned
Jack Corliss is at Goddard.)
My impression: conscience is a product of memory -- you remember
something as bad or good, and after awhile it becomes a subconscious
response. Goes back to the book title "All I Ever Needed to Know I
Learned in Kindergarten". I occasionally get a "bad" feeling about peas
when I eat them because I once had stomach flu and vomited up a serving
of peas. Am I having an attack of conscience about peas? Not really --
but it's a remarkably similar feeling! Practitioners of high theology
are unlikely to cite my feeling as evidence of God's existence, however.
Since memory is tied in with the complexity of the brain's
neural network, it is not a question we can resolve.
Jim Acker
jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
[remainder deleted for next posting]
Eric Sieferman
> Well, the theory of creation goes like this:
Good. A man who delivers on his promises. Thank you.
> In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
OK. So "heavens" came into being before "earth". This seems
to agree with evidence from astronomy. Pretty good theory
so far. But, who is this "God" character; how did God come into
being before the rest of the universe; and, how did God create
the heavens and earth? I'm sure that a well-formed theory
like creationism will answer these questions, eventually.
>And the earth
> was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep;
> and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then
> God said, "Let ther be light"; and there was light.
Hmmm, this presents a problem. What does a "formless" earth look like?
Was this the stage of planetary formation in which stellar dust
was coelescing into earth? If so, pretty good again.
But now ... BOINGK! The theory of creationism says that "waters"
existed on the surface of the earth before "light". If you mean
visible light, you are off by about 10 billions years or so.
If you mean that water existed on the earth before the sun was
created, you are still off by many hundreds of millions of years.
If you mean that visible light did not penetrate to the surface of
the earth until waters existed on the earth, you are still
way off.
Your theory does not match the best current observations of
astronomical phenomena. Other theories of cosmology are
much better at fitting the data, plus they have some sort
of falsifiability criteria.
Sorry, your theory is not as good as other theories.
It is hard to say for sure, because your theory has a
number of vague terms like "created", "heavens", "God", etc.,
which need to be defined more precisely before discussion
and evaluation can occur.
But, since I am only a Talented Amateur (tm), I may
be all wet. Try submitting your theory to a peer-reviewed
journal in a relevant scientific field; you may get
more acceptance.
(remainder of seriously flawed theory, deleted)
(sudden eruption of discussion of religion, which would be
more appropriately posted to talk.religion.misc or
soc.religion.christianity: deleted)
(non-sequitur whining about "this day and age": deleted)
(shocking reference to Dan Quayl, which would be more appropriately
posted to alt.fan.dan-quayle: deleted)
But, thank you for playing.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Lie is still a Lie, even if you believe it.
---------------------------------------------------------------
James G. Acker
: jga...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
:
Discussing:
: > : ON GOD AND SCIENCE
: > : by Sadaputa Dasa
: > : (c) 1992 The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
: > : Used by permission.
:
{first part appears in previous posting}
ACKER: > Assumption: The "divine spark" is observable, just like
: > the proof of the bottom quark, by interaction with matter (neurons
: > and synapses).
: > Implication: Given enough evidence, the behavior and
: > existence of the "divine spark" could be proven.
: > Implication #2: A connection between the "divine spark"
: > and God can be shown, hence, God is proven scientifically to exist.
: > QED.
: > AS faith relies on the evidence of things unseen, and by
: > this description the "divine spark" can be "seen", were it
: > provable, it would not be related to my God. According to the
: > Bible, the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically.
:
KALKI: That depends on your definition of science, doesn't it? If science is
: only the quantitative study of matter, then yes, the existence of God
: can not be proven within science. But if science includes the study of
: the entire field of perception, then if God is ever perceived, He must
: necessarily be real, and if He is never or can never be perceived, then
: there is no meaning or purpose in investigating Him, not even from the
: standpoint of "faith."
ACKER: Answer to your question: yes, it certainly does, Ollie. But my
answer keys more on the meaning of "proof" than a definition of science.
I can prove an object has mass by determing the volume of water it
displaces (volume) and its weight, giving me a density in g/cm3. The mass
is defined by certain conventions (what a "gram" is, the definition of
"volume", etc.). Placing the mass of the object in the larger
theoretical framework would proceed to why matter possesses mass, and
our answer would derive from more and more esoteric physics, as you
like, Kalki. At some point, what is clearly "provable" -- this
object has mass -- crosses over to what is either unprovable, or
"yet to be proven" -- matter is constituted of quarks, one of which
is the "top" quark. The investigation is similar with regard to the
perception of God -- there are documentable manifestations of personal
behavior related to perception of God. Yet there is no theological
supercollider to give rise, obviously by smashing inherently "good" and
inherently "evil" moral particles together at high speed, to a God-particle
and an anti-God particle.
{for the following to make more sense, read Kalki's next response before
what is stated next. My mistake.}
ACKER: Regarding your NEXT point -- I don't really care about faith
turning into direct knowledge of a deity, and how that relates to
the decline of Western Civilization. The Bible documents that certain
evidences were once made known. Faith in those evidences, _pure_ faith,
with no more _save the evidence of one's own experience_, is what is
required to know the triune God.
Amazingly, that's where we agree, Kalki. But whereas you contend
(as have those on really good LSD trips) that personal experience PROVES
the existence of God, I _know_ that personal experience only provides
a basis for personal faith. No proof, in the SCIENTIFIC rationale, will
ever be possible. Even if Pat Robertson claims that God is going to
destroy Aiken, South Carolina on "Nightline", and less than ten seconds
later an uncharted asteroid obliterates Aiken --
IT'S NOT PROOF!
(However, Robertson would probably be elected President-for-Life...)
KALKI: Faith indeed "relies on the evidence of things unseen." But if those
: things remain forever unseen, i.e. unperceived, then it would seem that
: faith is useless, since one can never have any actual contact with the
: object of one's faith. Faith must turn into certainty, into direct
: knowledge, or it will be lost eventually. This is exactly what has
: happened in Western civilization, since Western theologians have been
: ineffective in providing methods of directly contacting God and instead
: have developed a purely speculative, intellectual kind of theology.
ACKER: Certainty in the Christian sense lies only in the experience of
the individual. Mother Teresa does not appear to have lost her faith.
Or Archbishop Tutu. And they might even claim direct knowledge. There's
a difference between direct knowledge and material evidence. It's almost
a legal point.
KALKI: That scientists have reacted with scorn to the eclectic concoctions and
: academic exercises of Western theologians is understandable, given the
: scientific drive for hard, perceivable evidence. However, the fact that
: a large body of theologians are making statements about God without
: really knowing Him is not proof that God does not exist. If even one man
: could step forward with a bona fide method by which anyone could make
: direct contect with the Lord, that should be sufficient to end all the
: controversy.
ACKER: A lot of scientists don't scorn theology. What they scorn is
the idiotic concoctions of the ICR, trying to come up with hard, perceivable
evidence in the face of opposing evidence.
Many theologians make statements about God and also believe that
God exists, as well. I know God too, Kalki -- it's a fundamental part of
my faith.
If by "bona fide method" you mean a scientifically demonstratable
phenomenon, I again state that such is impossible. Sorry.
KALKI: Of course, there is always the possibility that even if one
: knows that God exists, he might not like the idea, and might therefore
: prefer to pretend that God is a fiction. There are undoubtedly persons
: who do this. After all, the existence of someone more powerful than
: oneself is very unsettling to some people. Such people would certainly
: try to avoid contact with God, even to the point of embracing atheism.
ACKER: The Bible states that this type of behavior happens.
ARTICLE: > : Freeman Dyson of Princeton's Institute for Advanced Studies
: > arrived at : ideas similar to those of Gingerich, but from a
: > non-Christian : perspective.
: >.... The existence of a world soul is a question that :
: > belongs to religion and not to science.[6]
: >
ACKER: > Note Dyson's final statement, which Sadaputa chooses to
: > ignore.
:
KALKI: Ignore? Hmmm, the whole article is about the impossibility of
: maintaining any total separation between science and religion. If a
: world soul exists, then certainly such an entity would play a role in
: the functioning of the universe, and therefore it cannot be solely a
: religious question.
ACKER: No, Sadaputa (and you) are trying to do what Dyson said
shouldn't be done and what I'm stating can't be done. Science and
religion are separate fields of inquiry. Both valid, both different.
Even if Gingerich confuses the issue, I won't.
ARTICLE: > : Dyson fully accepts Darwin's theory of chance variation and
: > natural : selection. But he also explicitly grants mind an active
: > role in the : universe: "Our consciousness is not just a passive
: > epiphenomenon carried : along by chemical events in our brains, but
: > an active agent forcing the : molecular complexes to make choices
: > between one quantum state and : another."[7] He also feels that the
: > universe may, in a sense, have known : we were coming and made
: > preparations for our arrival.[8]
: >
ACKER: > Dyson's quotes here are pretty amazing! I don't think that
: > he's right -- I think consciousness is a product of electrochemical
: > interactions in our brains. But this thing about "choice" is
: > troubling, because (example, activating an old memory) I seem to
: > affect the quantum state of molecular complexes in my brain.
: > But wait! I can affect the quantum state of any molecule I
: > want. Just put it in the path of a laser tuned to the right
: > frequency, and it'll jump states and emit photons. So,
: > consciousness does affect quantum states. Internally and
: > externally.
: > Tough nut, though. Take it up, anyone.
:
KALKI: Yes, consciousness does affect matter! We can all see how a chain of
: events, starting with our free will, can cause a change in the physical
: universe. What is not as easily accepted is that consciousness can act
: directly on matter although it is not matter itself. (Refer to the
: quantum mechanical measurement problem about where to draw the line
: between observer and observed).
ACKER: I'm treading on thin ground here, but the problem is not
where to draw the line, I believe, but the fact that the observer
affects what he is attempting to observe. I know I'm the observer, and
I know the electron is what I'm trying to observe. And I just
accurately determined its momentum! But -- oh darn, I don't know
where it is now!
THAT'S the problem.
ARTICLE: > : Dyson is verging on scientific heresy, and he cannot escape from
: > this : charge simply by saying he is talking about religion and not
: > science. : Quantum mechanics ties together chance and the conscious
: > observer. Dyson : uses this as a loophole through which to
: > introduce mind into the : phenomena of nature. But if random
: > quantum events follow quantum : statistics as calculated by the
: > laws of physics, then mind has no choice : but to go along with the
: > flow as a passive epiphenomenon. And if mind
: >
ACKER: > I think the key word here is "random". Sadaputa is
: > implying that the entire molecular framework of the brain operates
: > randomly, according to the laws of quantum physics. If I read his
: > implication correctly, he's wrong. The primary nature of brain
: > function is electrochemical, and not quantum mechanical. It
: > therfore operates according to rules which are much more stringent
: > than quantum statistics.
:
KALKI: Well, again, you are pushing it back a notch, but the problem is still
: there. According to modern (speculative) physics there is some sort of
: unified quantum field that governs the interactions of all known forces.
: If this quantum field operates in a manner similar to standard QED, then
: the basic particle interactions must all be probabilistic, so that even
: electromagnetic and gravitational forces are ultimately indeterminate in
: principle.
ACKER: I think I got ya here. _Interactions_, on the quantum level, I
agree, are causally indeterminate. But it is clear that the actual
forces are NOT indeterminate! The _real_ problem is why a system that is
fundamentally indeterminate produces defined and observable, quantifiable
phenomenon -- such as the gravitational acceleration of the Earth, 9.8
meters per second squared (approximately).
That's a key difference. Thermodynamics is more constraining
on the system than quantum mechanics. Thermodynamics can normally be
aligned with "common sense" -- i.e. add heat, increase molecular
motion, more disorder = more entropy. Many quantum phenomena define
"common sense". The quantum forces that constitute the strong force
binding neutrons and protons in the nucleus have little influence on the
atomic bonds in a water molecule. The forces are so determinate that
"bond energy" is defined, and the oscillations and motions of the
atoms in a molecule can be seen as energy absorption bands (which
is related to greenhouse gas warming, but I digress).
KALKI: The existence of higher level systems (living organisms) that
: exhibit highly non-random effects like consciousness and conscience must
: therefore be due to some organizational principle as yet unknown to
: science.
ACKER: An organizational principle as yet unknown to science? You
might be surprised. I'm not disputing that _true_ scientific inquiry
might find some underlying rules. The _Washington Post_ yesterday had
book reviews of two books on "complexity", which in essence, addresses
how seemingly unrelated events -- everyone selling or buying small
quantities of business stock, for example -- produce apparently organized
behavior, like the long slide of the Japanese stock market. (An
admittedly poor example, but that's what the _Post_ used.) I believe
that a lot of phenomena -- like consciousness (the organized firing
of neural synapses) or abiogenesis (increasingly organized combinations of
simple molecules) -- will fall under this theoretical umbrella. More
for you and I to read, Kalki.
KALKI: I had to stop here, because this is just sooooo long! I will forward
: your review (all 3 of them) to the Bhaktivedanta Institute. They have
: asked me to send them any interesting responses I get from these posts,
: and yours are certainly some of the best!
ACKER: When Sadaputa calls me up to personally discuss some of this
stuff, how many points do I get? (Not that I'm not enjoying this.)
Jim Acker
jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
Oh, and by the way, Kalki -- just because I'm not going to
commit another penalty doesn't mean I'm dropping back into zone
coverage. Count on it ;-)
Chris Lee
< large chunk of biblical quote delete to save net.bandwidth >eep;
Then
>
> Quoted directly fom Genesis chapter 1 in the
> New American Standard Bible.
Erm. That's what most of us thought. But the creationists who want to
force it to be taught as fact, not myth, never mention the bible. Remember
how Jim Loucks kept persisting that ICR creationism was scientific not
biblical, and how he went through hoops trying to justify his view of
creation without invoking the bible, before he gave up.
> That is the theory of Creation to whoever asked.
And how do you get somebody who is
- of another religion, or
- of the same religion, but who is not a biblical literalist, or
- is an atheist,
to accept the quoted story as fact, in spite of all the evidence to the
contrary? Most creationists include Noah's flood, which I'm glad you left
out because all the evidence is contrary to the biblical story.
> Someone had
> mentioned something about the fact that the world was created so
> perfectly gave them the creeps or made them feel uncomfortable. The
> thing is, it was not created perfectly; God did not make man as a
> robot, He gave him freewill, to choose what to do. That was where the
> fall of man comes in and that is where the idea of an imperfect world
> comes in. The idea of Christianity has a lot of commitment in it;
> commitment to a God that you can't see, in a book that is old but
> inspired by this God, and commitment of one's life to this whole
> belief. In this day and age, there is not much commitment. There
> arso many families that are torn apart by divorce and who gets married
> anymore, why not just have children? Former vice-president Quayle was
> right in what he said about the family values of this country, they
> have gone to pot. The reason it is so hard for everyone to believe in
> Christianity is because it takes commitment to someone besides
> themself, and that takes alot, for people to give up their selfish
> ambitions.
>
Ermmmm..... Christianity and evolution are not mutually exclusive, at least
to most christians who do not interpret the bible literally. But then most
of them don't. So your sermon isn't really necessary.
But you didn't think about your argument, did you? The real reason
everybody who isn't a christian find it so hard to believe in christianity
could be:
- they already believe in another religion. Imagine (say) a moslem
telling you the "real" reason you aren't a moslem.
- any religion at all doesn't make sense to them (the atheists)
Anyway, I am not a christian, and I do have commitments to a lot of other
people, my family, my colleagues, and a very special lady 8,000 miles away
in another continent.
By the way, Dan Quayle is still Vice-President of the United States of
America until January 1993.
>
>--
> Jonathan Scott Gibson
> JS...@LEHIGH.EDU
> BOX 479 X0264
Chris Lee
James G. Acker
: ACKER: Mickey Rowe also made some valid comments on this topic, from
: a different perspective. To address your comment directly -- no, what
: you describe here is not scientific at all, it's strictly observation.
: You aren't formulating theories or testing them. I'll help you out --
: I grant that several questions could be addressed in a psychological
: study of personal moral orientation, such as: How does it develop? What
: is its initial manifestation in a child? How early? Are there cultural
: patterns which define it? Is it perturbed by legal impairment (clearly
^^^^^
I meant "mental impairment", under which I clearly typed that.
{remainder deleted}
{not my mind, the article, stupid!}
Jim Acker
jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
James G. Acker
Gotta fix another typo.
James G. Acker (jga...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: kalki33!sys...@lakes.trenton.sc.us wrote:
: : jga...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
: :
:
: Discussing:
: : > : ON GOD AND SCIENCE
: : > : by Sadaputa Dasa
: : > : (c) 1992 The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
: : > : Used by permission.
: :
: {first part appears in previous posting}
: That's a key difference. Thermodynamics is more constraining
: on the system than quantum mechanics. Thermodynamics can normally be
: aligned with "common sense" -- i.e. add heat, increase molecular
: motion, more disorder = more entropy. Many quantum phenomena define
^^^^^^
Oops -- I meant to say "Many quantum phenomena _defy_ "common sense".
: "common sense". The quantum forces that constitute the strong force
: binding neutrons and protons in the nucleus have little influence on the
: atomic bonds in a water molecule. The forces are so determinate that
: "bond energy" is defined, and the oscillations and motions of the
: atoms in a molecule can be seen as energy absorption bands (which
: is related to greenhouse gas warming, but I digress).
:
Jim Acker
jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
Kent Sandvik
js...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JONATHAN SCOTT GIBSON) wrote:
> In article <ksand-191...@wintermute.apple.com>, ks...@apple.com (Kent Sand
> vik ) writes:
> >Yeah, I've asked about that one now for two years, and nobody from
> >the creation field has provided me with one. It's really sad, and
> >when there's a lack of a creation based theory (I deliberately left
> >out Hoyle :-) ), then the next best thing you could do is to sabotage
> >existing theories.
> Well, the theory of creation goes like this:
> In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth
> was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep;
> and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then
> God said, "Let ther be light"; and there was light. And God saw that
If this is a *theory*, then it's one of many creation based mythologies,
where my favourite ones are the Nordic and the Finnish 'creation' theories.
A scientific theory requires *much more* than a good story.
> That is the theory of Creation to whoever asked. Someone had
> mentioned something about the fact that the world was created so
> perfectly gave them the creeps or made them feel uncomfortable. The
> thing is, it was not created perfectly; God did not make man as a
> robot, He gave him freewill, to choose what to do.
Do you imply that this creator did a bad job when he couldn't even
create a place where people had free will, but they don't/didn't starve
to death?
Kent Sandvik
Or what about a publication in a scientific journal?
cj...@minster.york.ac.uk
: Well, the theory of creation goes like this:
:
[ Genesis 1 deleted ]
:
: Quoted directly fom Genesis chapter 1 in the
: New American Standard Bible.
: That is the theory of Creation to whoever asked. Someone had...
Now quote the next two chapters for *another* theory of creation (by this
rather quaint use of the word "theory").
[ Homily on selfishness, commitment, freewill, and family values deleted ]
Your subsequent remarks are unrelated to the question of theories for
how life developed. Lots of Christians will agree with you on the
theological stuff, and yet still use the evolution to explain the
origin of life, and geology to explain the origin of mountains.
I hope you were just kidding about the "theory" bit above, as an excuse
to post the homily. But if this is so, it would be better in another
group.
Best wishes -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Brett J. Vickers
a supposed theory of creation, I'll just sit here and assume this
recent attempt to endow creationism with a scientific backbone
was a joke.
:-)
--
Brett J. Vickers
bvic...@ics.uci.edu
James J. Lippard
I took the question of interest to be the origin of life, not necessarily
the origin of the universe as a whole. Surely there are probabilities
and evidence we can examine regarding life's origin (e.g., as is done
in Robert Shapiro's _Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life
on Earth_).
James J. Lippard
>In article <21DEC199...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
> lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>
>> I can, and do, agree with everything [Eric Sotnak
>> (es...@troi.cc.rochester.edu) said in article
>> <1992Dec20.2...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>] without agreeing
>> that the anthropic principle explains the existence of life.
>
>Would you agree, however, that the (im)probability arguments about why
>things are such that "life" could form are uninformative? It seems
Well, the bad ones are uninformative. There are good ones, though.
(Again, let me refer to Robert Shapiro's _Origins_ book, in which
he compares several different theories of the origin of life and
assesses their relative (im)probabilities.)
>that that was the gist of the initial post to which you objected. I
>believe it was Mark Isaak who wrote what you called "a bad argument".
>Mark did not claim that any anthropic principle "explained life", only
>that:
>
>}>}>>I, too, once marveled at the unlikelihood of everything in the
>}>}>>universe coming together in such a way to create me. Such an occurrance
>}>}>>seemed wildly improbable. Then I realized that, had all circumstances
>}>}>>not been as they were, I wouldn't be around to marvel, so questions of
>}>}>>probability are meaningless. The probability of my existence, given that
>}>}>>I exist, is exactly one, no matter what my theological assumption
>
>If you agree with Eric, and your objection is merely that Mark hasn't
>explained the existence of life, then I think you were a bit too
>hasty. Mark didn't claim to explain the existance of life; he only
>claimed that Lionel's statements about its probability of occurrence
>were somewhat meaningless.
I think there *are* meaningful probabilities to be discussed regarding
the origin of life.
Lionel Tun
>Mr. Tun has made the mistake of claiming that since the
>(antecedent) probability of life existing (or having come into existence) is
>so low, supernatural agency must be involved. Another mistake in judgment.
I would not have said low, but rather zero - ie impossible. The
mistake is in assuming that if there are enough `tries' then
something that is impossible becomes possible.
--
________ Lionel Tun, lio...@cs.city.ac.uk ________
/ /_ __/\ Computer Vision Group /\ \__ _\
/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
\___\_\_\/ 071-477 8000 ext 3889 \/___/_/_/
Daniel A Ashlock
lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
> I think there *are* meaningful probabilities to be discussed regarding
> the origin of life.
I wanted to firmly agree with Jim Lippard on this and go on to say that
these probabilities can probably be estimated, eventually, by a series of
experiments and observations partially guided by those experiments. I saw a
number of people working on creating abiogenisis events at Alife III this
summer (one of the hot topics is lipid membranes. The form spontaneosly and
can partition water into partially seperate zones which allow very complex
chemistry). Once we have a menu of abiogenisis techniques available (5-30
years?) it will get much easier to get esimates of these probabilities.
> Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
> Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
> University of Arizona
> Tucson, AZ 85721
Daniel A Ashlock
writes:
> es...@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:
> >Mr. Tun has made the mistake of claiming that since the
> >(antecedent) probability of life existing (or having come into existence) is
> >so low, supernatural agency must be involved. Another mistake in judgment.
>
> I would not have said low, but rather zero - ie impossible. The
> mistake is in assuming that if there are enough `tries' then
> something that is impossible becomes possible.
Why is it impossible? Because you don't want it to be possible?
Or have you got some reasoning or evidence this time? I hope
not. I'm not prepared to have hell freeze over.
Eli Chiprout
>I took the question of interest to be the origin of life, not necessarily
>the origin of the universe as a whole. Surely there are probabilities
>and evidence we can examine regarding life's origin (e.g., as is done
>in Robert Shapiro's _Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life
>on Earth_).
But the anthropic principle,which you challenged, does not refer to
life's origins within the context of the earth alone. It only attempts
to answer the question "why is the universe so "constructed", the
earth so "placed", the water content "just so", etc. for life to arise
here. The answer is that in places where things are not "just so" we
would not be around to ask the question (and there may be VERY MANY such
places in the universe, or in "previous" worlds).
I agree that
we can get SOME sense of probabilities, though how good that sense
is, is debatable, because of the enormous difficulty in recreating the
early conditions on the earth, and for reproducing/understanding long
periods of time in the laboratory. So it is still not equatable
to the 15 riflemen that one can see, judge, and measure.
Since evolutionary processes took place on earth, with sometime long
periods of statis, it is the simplest (not necessarily the most accurate)
to assume that life also STARTED here. Since any probability calculations
fail to be convincing, and since pushing the start of life away from
the earth to somewhere else in the cosmos, only postpones the problem,
the simplest assumption, (for the time being) is that life started on
earth.
>Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
>Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
>University of Arizona
>Tucson, AZ 85721
James J. Lippard
>In <22DEC199...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>
>>I took the question of interest to be the origin of life, not necessarily
>>the origin of the universe as a whole. Surely there are probabilities
>>and evidence we can examine regarding life's origin (e.g., as is done
>>in Robert Shapiro's _Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life
>>on Earth_).
>
>But the anthropic principle,which you challenged, does not refer to
>life's origins within the context of the earth alone. It only attempts
>to answer the question "why is the universe so "constructed", the
>earth so "placed", the water content "just so", etc. for life to arise
>here. The answer is that in places where things are not "just so" we
>would not be around to ask the question (and there may be VERY MANY such
>places in the universe, or in "previous" worlds).
Well, I think that "answer" is completely lacking in explanatory value.
Your parenthetical remark seems to hint at another explanation: that
it is a matter of random chance, that there are (but why?) multiple
universes with different laws, so many of them that life was bound to
arise in some of them. Stronger forms of the anthropic principle
(e.g., Barrow and Tipler's SAP and FAP) look like claims of backward
causation--it is *because* of our observations that the world is the
way it is. Regarding claims that strong, I have to agree with
Martin Gardner's assessment that these are Completely Ridiculous
Anthropic Principles, or CRAP.
>I agree that
>we can get SOME sense of probabilities, though how good that sense
>is, is debatable, because of the enormous difficulty in recreating the
>early conditions on the earth, and for reproducing/understanding long
>periods of time in the laboratory. So it is still not equatable
>to the 15 riflemen that one can see, judge, and measure.
The point of the analogy was that there are two different questions
to which we'd like an answer. The anthropic principle can only answer
the less interesting one. (Why am I here? Because all the riflemen
missed/because the conditions were right for life to arise. The more
interesting question is why did all the rifleman miss/why were conditions
right for life to arise? At some point the answer is probably going to
have to be "it just did," but the anthropic principle looks like an
attempt to disguise that fact and answer with "it just did" much
earlier than necessary.)
Eric Sotnak
>es...@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:
>>Mr. Tun has made the mistake of claiming that since the
>>(antecedent) probability of life existing (or having come into existence) is
>>so low, supernatural agency must be involved. Another mistake in judgment.
>I would not have said low, but rather zero - ie impossible. The
>mistake is in assuming that if there are enough `tries' then
>something that is impossible becomes possible.
This strikes me as a sort of knee-jerk response on Mr. Tun's part. So I'd
like to offer him the opportunity to state whether he REALLY thinks that the
probabibility of life having come into existence without supernatural
intervention is 0 (not even almost 0). If so, what licenses this conviction
that a natural explanation for life is, literally, impossible? Have you an
argument that we might consider?
--
********************************************************************
Eric Sotnak | One life.
es...@troi.cc.rochester.edu | One chance.
Dave Knapp
Actually, Jim, I think Shapiro's arguments are flawed, for two
reasons: first, his estimates of probability must imply some
(still speculative) model(s) about the origin of life; the
probability that the model is correct is left unaccounted-for.
Second, since I'm not aware of any well-defined way to separate
"living" from "non-living," so any probability estimated for such
a transition is equally imprecisely defined.
Real estimates of probabilities require observations, and it's
a well-known property of statistics that one cannot infer
anything about probability distributions from a single
observation. (Actually, that's not true: you can infer that the
probability for X is non-zero if you observe X.) Estimating the
magnitude of a probabiliy given a single observation is
equivalent to estimating the slope of a line given a single
point.
As far as I know, we have exactly one observation of the
development of life from non-life, so I think it is fair to say
that no estimate of the magnitude of the probability is
justified.
You may respond (as I'm sure Shapiro would) that we have
observed the formation of precursors to life. But I submit that
while such an observation is important, as the development of
these precursors is necessary condition for the development of
life, it certainly isn't sufficient. Until life is either
produced experimentally in a laboratory or observed elsewhere in
the universe, I submit that any estimate of the probability of
formation of life, whether by a creationist or an actual
scientist, is purely guesswork.
-- Dave
--
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
* David Knapp d...@imager.llnl.gov (510) 422-1023 *
* 98.7% of all statistics are made up. *
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Jon Livesey
|> >Mr. Tun has made the mistake of claiming that since the
|> >(antecedent) probability of life existing (or having come into existence) is
|> >so low, supernatural agency must be involved. Another mistake in judgment.
|>
|> I would not have said low, but rather zero - ie impossible. The
|> mistake is in assuming that if there are enough `tries' then
|> something that is impossible becomes possible.
How would you justify this "zero" claim?
jon.
Eli Chiprout
>In article <emc.725044151@tomalak>, e...@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes...
I think that I am starting to see your drift. But let me clarify further.
The anthropic principle does not offer a final solution, i.e. an explanation
of why life is here. If it were so, I agree that it is too early to
answer (i.e. preempting the investigation). It just offers an additional
dimension of thinking that preempts the "this universe is amazing for
its exact character so as to produce life" explanation as the only one
possible. It may be true
that "this universe is amazing" (i.e. non-random) but this will have to
be shown by proving that indeed this is the only world that has ever
existed and that, although many other possible worlds can exist, only
this one (a life bearing world) exists. Now to show THAT, is quite an
undertaking. I would not know how to go about it, nor, I suspect, would
most scientists. The anthropic principle says, that a much more reasonable
position (if not reasonable, then at least plausible) is that many other
worlds (planets) could have existed (could exist), but no one would be
on those worlds asking these questions. It does not deny the possibility
that this world is non-random. It just offers a way out of the "this
is the only possible explanation" that some automatically assume. It
denies the automatic statement of "Creation cannot exist without a Creator"
because one has to prove "Creation" rather than "one of many possibilities"
first (which is what I believe you are saying).
It may be true that given logic, the universe as it must exist, that
life would ALWAYS arise as a consequence of the laws, no matter what the
setup would be. The anthropic principle would still be true in that case
since it does not preempt that answer. (I think that this position would
be easier to show).
Now the investigation can begin!
>Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
>Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
>University of Arizona
>Tucson, AZ 85721
Kent Sandvik
>
> es...@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:
> >Mr. Tun has made the mistake of claiming that since the
> >(antecedent) probability of life existing (or having come into existence) is
> >so low, supernatural agency must be involved. Another mistake in judgment.
>
> I would not have said low, but rather zero - ie impossible. The
> mistake is in assuming that if there are enough `tries' then
> something that is impossible becomes possible.
This is the issue, near zero is *not* zero. Even if you wish
this is the case.
Keith Doyle
>From Back to Godhead magazine, November/December 1992
>ON GOD AND SCIENCE
>by Sadaputa Dasa
>So is the science of Darwinism fully compatible with conventional
>religious beliefs? That depends on one's conventions. If by God you mean
>a real spiritual being who controls natural phenomena, even to a slight
>degree, then Darwinism utterly rejects your idea -- not because science
>empirically disproves it, but because the idea goes against the
>fundamental scientific program of explaining all phenomena through the
>laws of physics.
Here Dasa seems to be equating Darwinism with science, rejecting both
because they must explain all phenomena through the laws of physics.
However this assumes that science is intended to be all-encompassing,
which it is not. Science's value is in that it offers verifiable
explanations, not that it offers philosophical truths. And such
verifiable explanations have been shown to have explicit value,
despite the philosophical possiblility that supernatural forces
exist which might distort scientific realities.
Science is not restricted to the laws of physics, merely rigorously
verifiable phenomena. Note that the personal experience of pink
elephants that may occur after many hours of chanting and meditation
does not qualify as rigorous evidence of the existance of said pink
elephants.
>Religious beliefs are compatible with Darwinism only if
>they hold that God is simply a human idea having something to do with
>moral imperatives.
Religious beliefs are compatible with Darwinism in several ways, not
the least of which is the concept that God may have initially generated
the universe knowing full well that Darwinism (among other sciences)
would then produce what we experience today. The alternative apparently
would have it that if God does not continually interfere with the
universe on an ongoing basis to keep it operating, the universe is
"atheistic", which is clearly inaccurate if God is necessary for the
initial event.
>But if this is what you believe, then instead of
>having religious beliefs, you have "scientific" beliefs about religion.
Or religious beliefs about science.
>Judging from the theistic ideas of O'Keefe, Gingerich, and Dyson, many
>far-from-stupid scientists do believe in God and Darwinism. But in their
>efforts to combine truly incompatible ideas, they succumb to enormously
>muddled thinking.
Only muddled to those who are already muddled in their thinking it seems.
>And so they commit scientific heresy in spite of themselves.
It is not scientific heresy to be religious. It is only scientific
heresy to pose unverifiable claims as scientific. Just because a
scientist makes religious comments does not mean they are scientific.
>If one is at all interested in knowledge of God, one should
>recognize that such knowledge is not compatible with mainstream science,
>and in particular not with Darwinism.
So what? That does not change the validity of science and in particular
of Darwinism one whit.
If one is at all interested in knowledge of God, one should
recognize that such knowledge is not compatible with physical sporting
events, and in particular not with playing baseball. Perhaps we should
argue against the validity of such "atheistic" endeavors?
Keith
Onar Aam
Lionel, could you please put forward a coherent and detailed explanation of why
on earth the probability is zero? Besides, the probability of what? Abiogenesis?
Of evolution? Of both?
Could you also give us an idea of how much time you have spent trying to
understand principles of biology, or even of science? If your reading on biology
limits to mere creationist critics, isn't that to build your bold statements on
faith only? Do you honestly believe that your faith is going to convince anyone
on Talk.Origins? Remember that most of the people here are men (and women) of
reason. Faith won't do. Do you feel that you understand biology much, much better
than people here on TO? Do you trust science at all? Do you think that theory
should be reflected through technology? For instance, is it possible to make a
car based on physical theories which are wrong? Or even better, is it
possible to make even smaller Integrated Circuits (ICs) than today if quantum
mechanics turn out to be bogus? And finally, is it possible to have sciences
(genetics, information theory) which correlates with an evolutionary history
(which you claim is wrong) AND which at the same time have an imposing practical
application?
Onar.
Dr.P...@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
> evolutionists in coming up with outrageous ideas in an
> effort to convince themselves of the non-creation of the
> world and of themselves.
Think you could do something that would amaze the rest of us? You know, like
stating the theory of creationism?
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10 2 | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
| DR PEPPER | Community Outreach Center |
| 4 | |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask |
| Real americans don't | Westminster, Ca 92683 |
| pledge allegiance, they | Modem: 714-894-7039 |
| make the government earn | Fidonet: 1:103/241 |
| it. | Candynet: 42:1001/1 |
| | Internet: Dr.P...@f241.n103.z1 |
| | .fidonet.org |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
---
Dr.P...@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
> Message-ID: <1992Dec22.1...@city.cs>
> es...@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:
>>Mr. Tun has made the mistake of claiming that since the
>>(antecedent) probability of life existing (or having come into existence)
is
>>so low, supernatural agency must be involved. Another mistake in judgment.
> I would not have said low, but rather zero - ie impossible. The
> mistake is in assuming that if there are enough `tries' then
> something that is impossible becomes possible.
Aww, guess that's it for evolution. Guess there's nothing left but to state
the theory of creationism. Please do so.
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10 2 | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
| DR PEPPER | Community Outreach Center |
| 4 | |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask |
| Un-pa-tri-o-tic (adj): | Westminster, Ca 92683 |
| protesting when the | Modem: 714-894-7039 |
| government wants to kill | Fidonet: 1:103/241 |
| people. | Candynet: 42:1001/1 |
Jon Livesey
|>
|> > From: lio...@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
|> > Message-ID: <1992Dec22.1...@city.cs>
|>
|> > es...@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:
|> >>Mr. Tun has made the mistake of claiming that since the
|> >>(antecedent) probability of life existing (or having come into existence)
|> is
|> >>so low, supernatural agency must be involved. Another mistake in judgment.
|>
|> > I would not have said low, but rather zero - ie impossible. The
|> > mistake is in assuming that if there are enough `tries' then
|> > something that is impossible becomes possible.
|>
|> Aww, guess that's it for evolution. Guess there's nothing left but to state
|> the theory of creationism. Please do so.
That's one thing he could do. Another is to explain how, if the
possibility is zero, God came into existence. A third would be
his long-promised "easy" and "logical" explanation of the fossil
record using a Flood model.
jon.
Murgesh Navar
Then there was neither being nor non-being:
There was no air, nor firmament beyond it.
Was there a stirring ? Where ? Beneath what cover ?
Was there a great abyss of unplumbed water ?
There was no death nor anything immortal;
Nor any sign dividing day from night.
That One thing, in the stillness, breathed quiescent;
No second thing existed whatsoever.
Darkness was hidden in a deeper darkness;
This All was as a sea without dimensions;
The void still held unformed what was potential,
Until the power of Warmth produced the sole One...
Who truly knows, and who can here declare it ?
Whence it was born, and how this world was fashioned ?
The gods came later than the earths creation:
Who knows then out of what the world has issued ?
Whatever he made the world or did not make it,
He knows whence this creation came, he only
Who in the highest heavens guards and watches;
He knows indeed, but then, perhaps, he knows not!
A hymn from the Rig Veda (2000 BC). The Rig Veda
is the earliest of Hindu/Vedic Texts. This was primarily
the religion of the Aryans at there advent into India.
-murgesh
Mark Isaak
in response to a follow-up to a follow-up to a follow-up. Apologies if
anything relevent got left out along the way.]
>>I, too, once marveled at the unlikelihood of everything in the
>>universe coming together in such a way to create me. Such an occurrance
>>seemed wildly improbable. Then I realized that, had all circumstances
>>not been as they were, I wouldn't be around to marvel, so questions of
>>probability are meaningless. The probability of my existence, given that
>>I exist, is exactly one, no matter what my theological assumption
>In <20DEC199...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>This seems like a bad argument, to me. Suppose I'm put in front of a firing
>squad of fifteen men. They all fire, but I don't die. I continue to
>exist. By an argument analogous to what you've given, I shouldn't marvel
>at my own continued existence or wonder how it happened--the probability
>was one. But if, in fact, all fifteen men *missed* me, there is an unusual
>fact there that requires some sort of explanation. The fact that if they
>hadn't missed me, then I wouldn't be there to puzzle over my existence, does
>*not* explain what is curious in this situation. Likewise, the fact of
>life's existence requires some sort of explanation other than the supposed
>"explanation" offered by the anthropic principle.
You're basing your conclusion on what you already know about firing squads.
If you knew that only, say, one in ten individual shots would be expected
to miss, and that many fewer than 10^15 firing squad executions have ever
been performed, then, yes, you would certainly be justified in wondering
whether there was something different about your case which let you survive.
In contemplating the factors which allow life to exist in the universe,
however, we don't know anything about how likely each shot will miss or how
many trials there were. Suppose, in your example, that the number of
people who face firing squads is unknown and potentially infinite. Then you
would have no reason to think that your survival was anything special, or
at least you couldn't claim that it was inexplicable in terms of what you
knew.
I'm not saying that the anthropic principle explains the existence of life,
just that it says why life isn't inexplicable.
--
Mark Isaak "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
is...@aurora.com generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Stan Friesen
|>
|> Well, the bad ones are uninformative. There are good ones, though.
|> (Again, let me refer to Robert Shapiro's _Origins_ book, in which
|> he compares several different theories of the origin of life and
|> assesses their relative (im)probabilities.)
We've been over this before. Merely estimating the supposed probabilities
of the few current hypotheses on the origin of life (by making certain additional
assumptions about the nature of the Universe) is *not* evidence of anything.
Unless he has managed to eliminate all extrinsic assumptions, and has managed to
cover the range of all *possible* models of abiogenesis, the probabilities he
cites are just wild-ass guesses.
|> I think there *are* meaningful probabilities to be discussed regarding
|> the origin of life.
Yep, but most of us who have studied the issue disagree. There is simply not
yet enough evidence to make more than a gross estimate for certain specific
models.
--
sar...@teradata.com (formerly tdatirv!sarima)
or
Stanley...@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com