Posts
The latest effort to "produce life" involves stripping down a bacteria's DNA, refurbishing it, and creating a synthetic critter that doesn't occur naturally. This is being hailed as "producing synthetic life." But even the story notes:
The new bacteria will therefore be largely artificial, though not entirely, because it is composed of building blocks from already existing organisms.No doubt, humans are becoming increasingly adept at playing with the building blocks of Life, but we're not about to start making it from scratch. That role belongs to Someone else, and all science is doing is playing with His Legos. What all this tinkering around really reinforces is the fact design requires intelligent control, and Life requires a Lifegiver. Reminds me of a joke:
Scientists come to God one day and say "we figured it all out -- we know how you made Man."
"Really?" replies God. "Show me."
"OK," the group replies, as they reach down for some dirt.
"Wait a minute..." says God. "Get your OWN dirt..."
7 comments:
Sounds like Frankenstein's Monster.
Intelligent Design is creative and fascinating, but it does not survive when putting it up against "evolution". TO win as a leading paradigm, Intelligent Design - or any other paradigm - must both explain equally well all that which the challenged paradigm does and more. And that without referring to that which can not be proven empirically. If it can not, it is either not dealing with science or is inferior in its capacity to explain the findings and puzzles of the world of senses.
I suggest you all watch this little documentary, just as a started for those who wants to dig into this fringe debate
BBC - Horizon - A War On Science on Google or wherever you might find it.
WWW,
Thanks for the comment. I'll grant evolution is currently the "leading paradigm," but I believe that's more through indoctrination than any conclusive, objective, EMPIRICAL proof of the process of MACROevolution (or "molecules to man"). While variation WITHIN families/species is clearly observable, even in the present, there are no documented examples of, say, sea animals evolving into land animals or vice versa. Sure, there are conjectures about various fossils, but they are just that--conjecture. The sought after "missing links" are still missing.
As for ID being ruled out as a science because it may refer to "that which cannot be proven empirically," that view reveals its own materialist bias. Science, on the other hand, cannot prove that, in the words of Carl Sagan, "the universe is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." That is every bit as much a statement of faith as "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
What most rankles opponents of ID or Creation Science is not necessarily their methods (which in some cases are more rigorously peer reviewed than the latest "Lucy" find), but that they start with a different hypothesis -- one that a committed naturalist/atheist cannot tolerate. But if science is the testing of theory what, exactly, is wrong with asking the question "how does one detect intelligent design/order as opposed to random happenstance?"
Thanks for stopping by, to engage me in this "fringe debate." Please feel free to continue the conversation, either here or through the email link on my site.
Science is a method, it does not deal with "Why" or "Who"..only with How. Peer-review is only a minor manifestation and aspect of what might be the most important feature of the scientific method - the ability to circumvent subjectivity and find something everyone agrees with. This is the foundation in empiri - sensory input same for everyone, and not different depending on personal experiences and perceptional differences.
If ID can prove itself superior in explanatory power using these methods - then evolution should yield as reigning paradigm. But if it can not, it must either change what is considered science and then try again, or challenge something that is not scientifically found to be the most capable theory to explain what is found, spur and guide research into what is not yet found, predict new findings etc.
The idea of irreducible design - even if it had not been rebutted - would not have sufficed to prove more than that evolution had holes. It would not have meant that ID should step in and replace it. It is one thing to point out flaws, and another thing to prove itself superior in the same ways. And if the demands on science "disqualifies" from proving itself, then it is not science.
And about detecting evidence of "Intelligence"?
How do you find agreement across the board about what can be said to be objective evidence of intelligence, without setting arbitrary definitions?
Intelligence as we know it is nothing but a concept invented by humans, to give name and guide research into one aspect of ourselves and our world. Like PTSD we do not know its origins, and like PTSD it is known only as a set of "symptoms" - not mechanisms behind them.
It far too little empirical foundation to be used as a method to classify observations as evidence of presence of it.
Frankly, I can not understand why ID or creationism or whatever school presenting a religious framework for understanding the origins of life can not be satisfied with what I consider the greatest role of all - to provide ways of injecting depth and give answers to questions of "Why" and "Who"/"What"..all that which science does not and never intended to answers.
Instead of using the sneaky methods outlined in the video I pushed for, and undermining credibility in this role or ANY role in assisting people in making sense of what the observe - scientifically or otherwise - religion need to step up and take its position as a resource for people in its own right: not superior, not inferior , but equal and unique in function and nature.
So..
Battle it as science in accordance with the demands and definition of what is considered science - and not just by pointing out holes but by having all that which evolution has and more
or
Redefine science
or
Stop claiming it is science and rise up to the need for something more than science to complement science
WATCH BBC - Horizon - A War On Science ono Google Video
Sorry, so many spelling errors...You want me to rewrite or should I go for the old excuse about second language (-;
Hey, wait and I rewrite it with correct spelling and better flow - it;s like evolution: you get the chance to try again,,and again (-;
Here is the edited - not revised - version of my comment. I am good at thinking but lousy at capturing - which sometimes can lead the latter to obscure the former.
I said "fringe debate" and I meant it not as unimportant -only as insignificant within the science community as well as socially and politically globally speaking. I did not mean to say that the question is not important, as I am sure those that engage in this feels that it is.
Science is a method, it does not deal with "Why" or "Who"..only with How. Peer-review is only a minor manifestation and aspect of what might be the most important feature of the scientific method - the ability to circumvent subjectivity and perception as much as possible. Thus the demands for empiri - sensory input same for everyone, and not depending on personal experiences and perceptional differences. Possible to repeat and either support or refute through retesting. Data guiding theory, not theory guiding interpretation of data.
If ID can prove itself superior in explanatory power using these methods - then evolution should yield as reigning paradigm. But if it can not, it must either change what is considered science and then try again, or challenge something that is not scientifically found to be the most capable scientific theory when it comes to explaining what is found scientifically, as well as spurring and guiding research and make falsifiable predictions about new findings etc..by proving itself to be all that and more JUDGED BY THE SAME SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS THAT GOVERNS THE BATTLEFIELD ON WHICH EVOLUTION REIGNS.
The idea of irreducible complexity- even if it had not been rebutted - would not have sufficed to prove more than that evolution had holes. It would not have meant that ID should step in and replace it. It is one thing to point out flaws, and another thing to prove itself superior judged by the same standards.
And if the demands and standards of science "disqualifies" ID from proving itself, then it is not science.
And about detecting evidence of "Intelligence"?
How do you find agreement across the board about what can be said to be objective evidence of intelligence, without setting arbitrary definitions?
Intelligence as we know it is nothing but a concept invented by humans, to give name and guide research into one aspect of ourselves and our world. Like PTSD we do not know its origins, and like PTSD it is known only as a set of "symptoms" - not mechanisms behind them.
It has far too little empirical and objective foundation to be used as a method to classify observations as evidence of presence of it.
I would consent that irreducible complexity could have indicated that gradual evolution did not suffice to explain origins of every form of life, but do not make the mistake of jumping to the conclusion that there is some being with features like those we see in ourselves at work - that would be to read far too much into a finding that would have said very little and POSITIVELY explained even less (positively in the sense that it doesn't add to what evolution holds, only proves the presence of a hole without filling it with anything better).
But since evolution theory COULD explain the flagellum without breaking - it wasn't even a stretch of the theory - the point is mute.
Frankly, I can not understand why ID or creationism or whatever school presenting a religious framework for understanding the origins of life can not be satisfied with what I consider the greatest role of all - to provide ways of injecting depth and give answers to questions of "Why" and "Who"/"What"..all that which science does not and never intended to answer.
Instead of using the sneaky methods outlined in the video I pushed for, and undermining credibility in this role or ANY role in assisting people in making sense of what the observe - scientifically or otherwise - religion need to step up and take its position as a resource for people in its own right: not superior, not inferior , but equal and unique in function and nature.
So..
Battle it as science in accordance with the demands and definition of what is considered science - and not just by pointing out holes but by having all that which evolution has and more
or
Redefine science
or
Stop claiming it is science and rise up to the need for something more than science to complement science
WATCH BBC - Horizon - A War On Science on Google Video
I do not mean to change the subject - not now when it is getting interesting (-;
But I need to interrupt for an important question.
You call yourself a progressive, and I suppose you include USA in the realm of what you see as needing to change and improve.
I agree, but I find that any attempt or suggestion of change of conditions for people in USA that does not include what to do about the 2000 election - any such attempt amounts to mere window dressing and at worst treason and betrayal.
So - what is your take on the 2000 US election and what - if anything - should be done now to deal with what happened then?
Thanks and look forward to your reply...or questions
Post a Comment