Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 18 Oct 2006 15:56 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:r84bj29ks79pg0usm3m1gckgv430imkd0d(a)4ax.com... <snip> > Take them however you like. Actually, I'm surprised by how > narrow-minede and dogmatic people are about evolution, how firmly they > cling to the dumb-blueprint, random mutstion model of DNA. I know > that, as evolution is eventually understood, all sorts of amazing and > wonderful machanisms will be discovered. So many people seem to have a > vested interest in dullness... I guess they're most comfortable with > it. I agree, dogmatic beliefs to almost (*) anything need to be avoided where possible. On the other side, when something does resist the test of time, and so many assaults from various directions, it requires some very good evidence to over throw it. I am not a biologist. I am firmly in the camp of speculating for fun, often using knowledge remembered from almost forty years ago and some more recently read books (Ancestors Tale is interesting). One thing I find odd, is that you don't think DNA/RNA mutation and evolution is amazing and wonderful in itself. Isn't it amazing how four bases can produce such variety? (*) I say *almost* because the fundamental process of the scientific method is IMHO the dogmatic belief which has to be adhered to, or else madness reigns. :-)
From: T Wake on 18 Oct 2006 16:19 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:irbbj21g2kpf26j9k453j93a17hpmei2ik(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:11:06 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >>> If the origin of the universe is unknown, and maybe >>> unknowable, feeling that it was designed on purpose does no harm to >>> scientific inquiry. >> >>Generally speaking any belief system does no harm to scientific >>exploration >>in that manner. > > Exactly. > >>The problem comes in when the belief tries to answer >>scientific questions. > > Science shouldn't be so fragile that it is threatened by peoples' > beliefs about stuff like this. Science isn't fragile, religion is. Science can co-exist with religion perfectly well. Dogmatic adherents to certain monotheistic religions do not find it as easy. The problem is how the mindset seems to read. For scientists it comes as no real shock if a "Law" is falsified or found to be lacking. In most cases it is a time of joy and excitement as people rush to find new theories. For dogmatic religious people, when faced with a line in their Holy Book being wrong, it is an entirely different matter. > Until it is proven otherwise, the > universe may have originated in intelligent design, vacuum fluctuation > or (as one serious theory has it) time is an illusion and the universe > had no date of origin. Well, I sort of agree. The problem (IMHO) is this is no longer science. Ideas and innovation are great. Having an idea then going about working out how to test it is _very_ good science. Assuming things which can not be tested for is not science. Keeping an open mind is essential. Having a mind _so_ open that it spends eternity determining every possibility is not essential. > Why are so many amateur scientists so hostile > to the idea that the universe was designed? I dont know. I can only speak for myself. I am hostile to the idea as science because it is untestable. All the current evidence is that it was not designed, yet at each stage the Designer Supporters seem to redefine the critera. Also, if the universe was designed it answers no questions but simply creates many, many more. Where is the designer? Who designed the designer? Who designed the universe the designer is in? How can we call it a "universe" when there is more than one of them? Finding new questions is often good for science but these are not. They continue into a logical circle. > I figure there's a chance > that it was, And an even greater chance it wasn't. > and a bigger chance that DNA was designed. But still a greater chance it wasn't. Both also lead to the questions of how can we test to see if it is designed? Who designed it? How can we falsify our choice of designer? >These > speculations invoke hostility, for no logical reason I can figure out. I dont know why either. > The Jesuits have a long history of science and mathematics. They > somehow didn't find them mutually exclusive to belief. Not all religious adherents do. Some followers of some deities dislike the fact that current scientific understanding forces them to redefine the tenets of their faith (age of the planet, descent of man etc). Others are more reasonable and don't. There are lots of people with strong religious beliefs of all denominations (especially pantheistic religions) who do very well in science. The two are not mutually exclusive in normal circumstances. When people try to teach religion as science, though, they are doing a great disservice to both.
From: T Wake on 18 Oct 2006 16:24 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:dEuZg.16010$e66.176(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in > message news:6vhcj257beh7bgi1u0iac8m5mshbm5cmsr(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 06:40:17 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> it's their destiny. As someone pointed out, many of the great >> scientists (Newton, Einstein) were Believers, and it didn't damage >> their creativity or math skills. I bet both were taught Creationism >> big-time. > > Maybe, but there's a big difference between the Jewish/Catholic (and most > Protestant sects') teachings, which take most New- and Old-Testament > stories as allegorical, and Christian Fundamentalism, which treat those > stories as literal truth (this is the basis for the name > "Fundamentalist"). An allegory about the formation of the universe is a > lot less damaging than a fairy tale that is to be taken literally. > > >>>If you're suggesting that ID is a viable scientific theory, then the onus >>>is >>>on *you* to come up with the experiments that will test that theory. >> >> I'm suggesting that, given a big problem (and the universe is a *big* >> problem) and no viable much less testable theories, there's no cause >> for being hostile to any suggestion, and more than for being convinced >> of any truth. > > If they make no useful predictions and aren't testable/falsifiable, they > don't belong in science class. Period. > > String theory, and the resulting outcomes, are in a slightly different > class from ID/CS. Well......... :-) > String theory is essentially mathematics, and not physics, and is the only > credible attempt (so far) to develop a mathematical construct that unifies > the electroweak force and gravity, and finally provide a unified theory > that explains all forces from a fundamental perspective. It has not yet > yielded any testable predictions, but I think that is from a perspective > of being far from complete. Ultimately, I think string theorists do hope > that the unification of those two forces will ultimately provide new > insights into physics that do provide testable theories. The difference > between it and ID/CS is that string theorists are at least making a > serious attempt to explain a physical phenomenon in a way that may > ultimately provide testable results. ID/CS shortcuts all that, and says > "it's true because the Giant Spaghetti Monster said it's true." I don't > see any possibility of that leading to any testable hypotheses. If you > think otherwise, then give me such a hypothesis, and test it, and I'll be > more than happy to have it taught in science class. > > Personally, I tend to be of the opinion that gravity is a non-fundamental > force, in much the same way that centrifugal force is non-fundamental, in > that it is a side result of inertia in a non-inertial (rotating) frame of > reference. Gravity is a result of the curvature of space-time that is > described by Special Relativity. This may ultimately make it impossible > to unify the different forces in a meaningful and useful way, but I think > we're a long way from knowing whether or not that is true. In any case, > there's a good reason cutting-edge stuff like this isn't taught in high > school science classes--the students just don't have the basis of > experience needed to critically evaluate a such a new entity. I agree with this, the quest for a GUT is a strange one and based on the belief that all four forces _must_ have quantized particles and be unite-able. Gravity, certainly in my day, was taught as a curvature of space time. There is no force carrier required as it shapes the "spacetime" everything else exists in. Looking for "Gravitons" and trying to tie it into the standard model is (IMHO of course) a wasted effort. That said, I hope I am wrong. I hope that someone actually does something with the numerous theories bounding around - although at the moment I doubt any could really be called "scientific theories."
From: T Wake on 18 Oct 2006 16:35 "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:45363396.C560073(a)earthlink.net... > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> No, the acts of a lot of people here bother me enough to publicly >> criticize >> them, yet I still want to be "around" them in the context of this >> discussion. >> >> By the way, it is the church leadership of which I am critical. I have >> many >> friends in several of the congregations, and I thoroughly enjoy being >> around >> them, even though I deplore something their church does (that happens to >> be >> illegal.) >> >> That may be your view--nice black-and-white worldview you've got there. >> I >> don't have that luxury, I see good and bad in everybody and everything. >> I >> get what I want out of the "relationship", and they appear to as well. >> We >> don't have to love everything each other does, but we can certainly >> appreciate each other for what we and they are worth. >> >> Eric Lucas > > > And your world view that allows you to ignore illegal acts somehow > makes you non hypocritical? It also makes you an accessory after the > fact, and depending on the crime, you could be charged for not reporting > it, when it does come under public scrutiny. Nice line in gibberish you have going there. Almost enough to build a strawman. Spending time with people who behave / think in a manner you don't agree with is not hypocritical. It gives them the chance to teach _you_ why they behave like that and _you_ the chance to educate them.
From: T Wake on 18 Oct 2006 16:38
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:iuicj2hq5e3gsabtq0pk16l20eiqsnradv(a)4ax.com... > My particular interest is understanding where ideas come from, and why > some of them get squashed. When Townes was trying to get his first > maser to work, his department head was convinced it was a waste of > time. Townes broke the idea to a Nobel laureat who promptly told him > that the maser couldn't work because it violated the rules of > thermodynamics. He later reconsidered. If you read sci.physics you can see hundreds of new topics, everyday, from people who think they have invented the great new idea. Should time and money be spent on every one of them? Stories like this are great, they show that out of every bazillion nutcases and cranks, some one has a truly great idea. There are still a bazillion cranks trying to get attention... |