Have the integrity to stand by your argument. You are arguing for Intelligent Design based on the premise that it is beyond our ability to explain evolution.
No, actually, that's not my argument. My argument is that human beings are too stupid to actually discover truth, so we make up myths like Evolution and Intelligent Design to explain the unexplainable. Thus the whole argument between the two is idiotic at best- and brainwashing at worst.
This is false. It is not beyond our ability to explain evolution. In fact, we are able to exlain and account for the entire process remarkably well. Nor is it beyond our ability, or yours, to understand evolution.
Fine, if you claim that- explain the WHOLE process, from the first hydrocarbon molecule to DNA to the eventual evolution of human beings and a prediction of where the evolution of our species (which obviously isn't done yet) is heading. And don't fall back on the myth of randomization to do it. Until you can do that, this claim that we are able to explain and account for every piece of the process is false.
It may however be beyond the ability of some to simply accept this process that they can both understand and explain. If so, then that is a problem you are either going to have to come to terms with, or come up with a better explanation for.
I deny that you've even understood or explained the process- and have to fall back on "random" for some portions of it.
If ID is your better explanation, fine. Just don't beset some misfortunate children with such an odious belief system as that. Especially on taxpayers money.
To me, both belief systems are equally "odious". What we should be teaching kids is that human beings are inadequate to come up with anything better than inadequate models to explain a universe far more complex than our own brains- which are pretty darn complex to begin with.
Hoo boy. I can see where you're going. So let me guess, your acccessing none-human experience to give us the inside scoop on whether the universe is deterministic or not.
Nope, it's not that easy. Where I'm going is that humans are incapable of discovering fact- and the whole idea of objective fact existing for human beings is a dogmatic myth at best, at worst a rotten lie used to brainwash kids. See my journal for more information.
Wrong. If I flip 10 coins (random mutation) and discard the ones that come up tails (selection), then I have a set of coins that all show heads. The input was random, the outcome was not.
Flipping 10 coins is NOT random- it's pseudorandom.
Then I hate to tell you this, but many things in the universe are indeterministic.
No, they are not. They only appear to be so due to your limited point of view.
Incorrect. Speciation has been observed.
And thus environmental changes alone are an insufficient explaination without the addition of variation within species. How stupid can you get not to follow that?
Repeating something doesn't make it true. Sorry.
Then why do you keep repeating the idea that randomization exists, when it obviously doesn't?
Who designed the designer?
The designer of the designer of course. No uncaused causes.
It's not frozen.
If it wasn't frozen, you'd accept the proof that ID is science.
The problem, which you keep denying in the face of all argument, is that ID is not science because it ignores tghe basic principles of science.
Which is a problem with the basic principles of science, not with ID.
Ergo, it should not be taught in a science class.
Then neither should your "basic principles of science" which are equally based upon faith. NO double standards allowed, no faith-based crap about how one set of basic principles is "better" than another one. Either accept both as equal, or reject both as lies.
If you randomly (for any reasonable definition of random) place hydrogen atoms in a bounded region of otherwise empty space... a number of hydrogen atoms equal in mass to the sun... at most a fixed percentage of that mass could be expelled in various directions with the rest eventually spontaneously organizing into a star (or perhaps a binary star pair). Of course the fine grained location of every particle of the output is as random as the input, but the gross structure of the output is powerfully non-random to arbitrarily high certainty.
What a very contradictory statement. Something is either random, or it is merely pretending to be random because we don't have all the input neccessary to understand the output. There's nothing supernatural going on here- each and every one of those particles is moving according to fixed phsical laws- and you CAN trace an individual particle through all the stages from input to output. That's only pseudo-random, not truly random.
If you want to turn to religion for those other questions and to have faith in your religion, fine. But our constitution forbids anyone to seize the force of government to take sides and push one religion over another. Resolve religious questions outside of government-run highschools.
The point is- science is incomplete enough to require faith to believe it's claims. Because it requires faith- then by the same rule in the constitution you believe in and I completely disagree with, you need to banish science as well. Mathematics too. In fact, the only things I can think you *might* be able to teach is law and the Constitution itself- ooops, no, that mentions God.
All of human knowledge ultimately rests on faith and belief- pretending that it is otherwise is a lie.
Most people, and in particular our court system, roughly agree on a rather different and more fuctional line between religion and other-than-religion than you appear to want to use. Heh:)
Most people are liars in this respect, and are attempting to hide the truth from children.
If you want to say there are philsophical issues behind "I saw Bob pull out a gun and shoot Bill", well ok... there are philosophical issues. However if you're Bob, the court is still going to send you to prison where you can mull over the philosphical issue of whether the bars you think you see on your cell are real.:)
Yes, and that's a significant error on the part of the court- and we should say so.
You are missunderstanding Quantum Mechanics. As the prior posts already wrote, Heisenberg uncertainty is NOT(!!!) merely a physical limitation on our ability to measure something. QM says that the information physically does not exist in the first place, not until it is measured.
And I'm saying Heisenberg is making the same mistake of any other Dogmatic preacher- mistaking his own point of view, or humanity's point of view, for a universal point of view.
What you are trying to suggest is a "hidden value" model, one where there is a real value already there that we simply cannot see and are unable to measure. There have been experiments done showing all "hidden value" models incorrect and impossible, showing that that the desired information is not and cannot already be there, not in any normal meaning of the words.
And exactly how do you prove that negative? The interferance of the human observer creates the problem of the hidden value model to begin with- you'd have to remove the human brain from the observation COMPLETELY- including observing the results of the experiment. Include the human brain, you introduce bias. There is no way around that.
Note that while this descibes an inderterministic observable universe, it can in fact be laid on top of a purely deterministic system. For exaple there is the "multiverse model" that basically says that every outcome that can happen does happen. Complete determinism. However we would only observe a single viewpoint, we would only observe one half of any particular branching point. The branch itself is deterministic, and there will be an exact copy of us observing each outcome on each branch, but which side of the branch any particular instance of us would subjectively observe is indeterminate.
I'm familiar with that potential explaination- heck, it solves a lot of my personal history, like why I remember nuclear weapons being used on Tripoli, Libya in the 1980s when nobody else does. However, it's a religious explaination ultimately- it requires faith to believe.
But that is merely one of many possible explanations, and is beyond what QM does or can say at the moment. In any case, it still says nothing either way about God.
And thus is a primarily *religious* interpretation of the results.
How do you predict a random start point? When you can predict a random start point, you can claim Evolution makes predictions- until then, the very word "random" in the start point makes evolution unpredictable.
The fact that you are ignorant of those experiments does not mean you can use your ignorance to claim evolution is not scientific.
Experiments that start with random events and prove only preconcieved notions are called observations, not experiments.
For just one example, evolution includes the element of common decent with variation. It predicts that genetic analysis of life on earth will fall into an extremely strict tree pattern. Thousands if not millions of such genetic analysis experiments have been run in the past several years and they have conclusively confirmed that extremely strict tree pattern.
That's not prediction, that's observation. Anybody looking at their own family tree can see that so-called "prediction".
Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment, Result... with that result being fed back in as a new observation. An ongoing loop of refinement and increasing accuracy and increasing understanding.
What increasing accuracy? How can you have increasing accuracy when you start with randomization as an assumption?
Science should be taught in the same manner as physics and chemistry and other fields of science.
Only AFTER it becomes hard science- becomes predictable, with NO random elements.
Evolution should not be singled out for attack by the same sort of people who attacked Galileo's sun-centered solar system because their "Literal Word Of God Scripture" said the earth did not move and that it was the center of the universe.
I don't- my latest journal entry attacks environmentalism on exactly the same premise- that hard science is indeed very hard to achieve, and it's nearly impossible to separate it from religion.
The word "random" is commonly used for anything that is which is outside the scope of discussion which is effectively arbitrary and could be substituted by almost any other similarly complex effectively unpredictable sequence.
Like GOD? This sentence alone is proof that you've just replaced one undefinable and unpredictable dogma with another, and based the theory on it. Might as well just admit to the proof and say "God done it" instead of "random"- at least more kids would know what you're talking about. But no, you've got to HIDE the truth behind a concept.
Here, I actually agree with you. When people have mechanisms by which they can get and feel fake success (material gain) without consequences (having to pay for it someday) the quality of life for them (demoralization, no incentive to try) and everyone else (welfare subsidies) goes down the drain. Enter the 'gold collar' class.
And this is *directly* related to the spiral our whole economy is in- it's been 29 years since the United States of America made a profit in our exports overall. Because of that, instead of say, punishing the stockholders and C-level executives for stupid trade decisions, they squeeze the labor class, who earns less money every year. Which throws people on welfare, after they go bankrupt, trying to maintain a lifestyle that makes no sense for their current income, which is far less than it was just a few years ago.
I agree one should not buy a mansion in Mississippi.
Or Oregon. Or New York. Or anyplace else that is seeing jobs shipped overseas. If you're a renter, you can move to where the jobs are going- India or China or Japan. If you're an owner, you're up a creek without a paddle.
But elsewhere, while you may be tied to an asset, at least you have one, and one which is about the only thing you can use to get ahead amid the inevitable inflationary pressures.
Eventually, the housing bubble will burst and even that will be hit by deflation. The United States is a failing economy- being born here is starting out life two strikes behind.
Crime and disunity among the powerless form the basis for the public discontent communists use to gain power - and the best way to create these conditions is to create communities of dependent renters (e.g. China).
Actually, there's another great way to do so- but once again China leads the way. You can also create disunity among the powerless by paying some more than others and then insisting that all are created equal when it's obvious that they're not. In China, the government in Bejing vs the rural east is obvious. In America, it's CEO salaries that are 400x minimum wage, while the same company hires illegal aliens and moves manufacturing overseas to save money and avoid paying even minimum wage.
I'm currently a homeowner- and lost my retirement and meager investments to stay one in the last 5 years. Can't sell- I owe more on the house than it is worth now that the Silicon Forest is going the way of the Silicon Valley- to China. In many ways, the Chinese have won- sold us, as Breshnev said, the rope to hang ourselves, at WalMart for a premium price advertised as low.
We really should move this to My journal where you'll get a better feel for where I'm coming from on this whole issue. It comes down to certainty and facts for me. Neither of which human beings are capable of, as much as we pretend to be.
Fair enough. It is a difficult balance. Yet I believe the correct balance point is much further into the neutral territory than you seem to.
In fact, my very first response is to refer you to my journal- there is no neutral territory between religions, the closest you can get is teaching tolerance of all religions and a lack of exclusion. The link above is to my journal, where I also link to a speech by one of America's favorite anti-science fiction writers on the subject.
All religions? Really? Including Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Wicca, and Druidism? How about Satanism? And Scientology? And, for that matter, plain old atheism? And how about the dozens or hundreds of variants within each of those blanket labels, like Catholics, Mormons, and Unificationists?
I have no problem with it- in fact, it would assure at least 3 parties a week in grade school, since the absolute best way to teach young children about various traditions is through parties based on those traditions.
Should all of these religions be taught as Truth? It'll take a very long time to get through the science curriculum that way.
Oh too bad- we actually need to expect the schools to TEACH something.
Or shall we filter them all down the their common demoninator, and teach that? If we do, then we are teaching just the science itself.
True enough- and that's the real role of the scientific method.
Again, there are more than just these three religions, and not all of them teach the same moral codes. It is the state's job to teach the morality codified within its own laws, but no more than that; the rest is up to the individual.
Oh, that's been real useful. Right now in America, we're failing to teach either- just look at our corporate world, where the phrase "It's just business" is used to excuse the worst personal ethical violations.
I wouldn't say that it's half the subject. We haven't even established that the theology of the ancient mathematicians is even relevant to the study of mathematics.
It's relevant because it's the WHY behind the assumptions and axioms that lie underneath all of mathematics- the foundation of the model. Without that framework, there is no why, there is just "because I said so".
But in any case, yes--it's not the job of the public schools to put knowledge in a theological context. It can't be, because there is no context that would satisfy all religions, so it has to be up to the individual.
Incorrect- there is a context- and that context is the human being. Religion is a part of being human that cannot and should not be expunged- do so and you run the risk of creating a new religion when it comes out somewhere else.
OK, haven't we been through this already? It feels like this is where I came in. The word "random" does not imply "godless".
With a God, the universe is deterministic- it was created for a purpose, and everything in it conforms to that purpose according to the scientific laws we are now discovering. Every particle in the universe is a part of that purpose. The only way you can have random is to have an indeterministic universe- one where particles follow random laws that are not discoverable at all. Random laws would be the ultimate proof against a God- it would leave us with only two conclusions, that either the mind of God is so formless and stupid that there are no laws, no purpose, or there is no God.
You have yet to address either of these two problems with the idea of random mutation and variation WITHIN species.
Your "think for yourself, little grasshopper" style fails not to amuse me.
It's only that way that I can get people to think- far to many accept the dogma of "authorities", religious and secular, and think they're not just doing what every fundamentalist has done since the begining of time.
For another look at this- and to get this discussion out of this arena and towards something far more profitable, see my latest journal entry on the subject.
Mutation and selection are the "motivation" of evolution in exactly the same way electromagnetism and neclear forces are the "motivation" of sunshine.
Exactly my point- without The Mind Of God, without the laws that create the universe, nothing occurs. Newton understood this- but in our separation of Church and Science, we've lost that- and it's a mighty big piece of EVIDENCE to DENY.
While this thesis is a worthwhile subject for debate in itself--and I'd love to go into the pre-Christian origins of algebra and multiplication--it's completely beside the point.
I said nothing that would limit us to a CHRISTIAN God. Either the concept of God is greater than EVERY religion, or it is not worth anything; religions are merely models of ways to look at the universe, no different from science.
Here's the thing: you're completely misunderstanding the intent of separation of church and state. It's not about keeping God away from the people. It's about allowing people to hold their own religion. And here's the key point: there's more than one religion.
I have no problem with that- freedom of religion is a fine idea. But when it gets twisted into freedom FROM religion, that somehow you're protected from hearing about other religions in the public sphere or that science must exist free FROM religion, that's when I have a problem.
Freedom of religion, as guaranteed by our Constitution, means that each citizen must have the freedom to worship his or her religion of choice, without fear of persecution from the state or from neighbors. This means the state cannot promote any one religion over any other--all religions must be treated with equal respect. This includes Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, as well as the doctrine of atheism.
I've got no problem with that either. Education however is NOT persecution, it binds us together as one people; thus all religions SHOULD be taught.
This means that any education promoted by the state must be free of any explicit references to any one religion.
No it doesn't- that's freedom FROM not freedom OF.
Mathematics is one such discipline:
The religion of the Pythagoreans you mean.
a Muslim and a Buddhist can equally appreciate that 6 * 3 = 18. (Even a fundamentalist Christian is likely to agree to this.)
Yes, and the eightfold path, the ten commandments, and the Quran all essentially teach the same morality- but you'd have them banned.
Now, if a particular person wishes to reflect upon the divinity inherent in multiplication, that's his private business.
And yet- you fail to see that you're only teaching half the subject by failing to mention it's religious roots.
See, here's the separation of church and state at work: nowhere in a science textbook will you see something like "there is no God" or "so-and-so happened all by itself, proving the absence of God" or "God caused thus-and-so to happen" or "Allah's divine wisdom showed the way for this-and-that" or "Through the grace of Lord Shiva, we now have whatever-it-is." There are no references to the Christian God, or any god, or the lack thereof (except in a social sciences context, and then it's always in reference to the people who hold a particular belief). That's the whole point. Each person is free to interpret the knowledge within the context of his or her own religion; the knowledge itself does not come encumbered by a particular religious belief.
You've apparently never read a modern textbook on evolution, where a random universe is a neccessary precondition of the whole idea. Without random mutation and variation within species, atheistic evolution falls apart. Theistic evolution, also known as Intelligent Design, doesn't require a indeterministic universe for evolution to be true. Only the second is compatible with all religions, the first denies that religion exists.
This is the difference between the Theory of Evolution and the doctrine of Intelligent Design. The ToE requires no particular religious belief in order to accept it--like any true science, it is independent of religion,
Bull. It requires that we accept the concept of an indeterministic universe.
On one thing Marxist Hacker 42 is right: we have replaced the theologists with the councils of science and damn right too. The scientists pursuit of objective knowledge has given us knowledge beyond our dreams. We are where we are because of science. If you wish to go down the route of theological dominance, then I believe you will go down the route of terror, murder torture. Believe this or be shot. Wipe out all the opponents, their writings, their race. Look what happened to the pagans in western europe. You want to live like the taleban, go ahead. You can count me out and actively against the religionists. Look what you are doing right now to the religionists- it's no different from anybody else espousing a dogma at the sacrifice of truth. But if you or anyone else thinks that "facts" and "evidence" exists- I suggest they read this Journal Entry on Facts and Evidence on the Internet.
You are clearly using the word "theological" in a different, significantly more general, sense that the original poster, and I am quite sure you realise this..
I certainly do realize this.
The abstract concept of "2", or of "gravity", or of "abstract concept" have no relation to religion whatsoever.
Actually they all do. 2 is related to the mathematical philosopher Pythagoreas, whose search for perfect numbers was a big time religion in ancient greece (more so the concepts of PI and the theorem that is named after him, but yes, mathematics was once a religion is the point). Gravity was discovered as a part of Newton's philosophical musings about the mind of God. All abstract concepts discovered before 1800 or so are similar; it's only after the American Revolution that we got the separation of Church and State, followed quickly by the separation of Church and Science. To some more than others, that was a loss, not a gain. A significant sign of this loss is that you did NOT know that mathematics was once a religion. But don't take MY word for it- look it up for yourself.
Randomness is a much simpler idea than God. You need some idea of randomness, or a pattern if you exist, to understand the universe, because it occurs everywhere. Now, you can say this randomness is real randomness or a pattern coming from the mind of God. But in the latter case, we look for the simplest possible God which could do this - and that's a God which does nothing but generate something that looks like a bunch of random numbers. Which by my standards is not intelligent - I have seen a PCI card that can do it.
The PCI card has you fooled to- that's not real randomness, just pesudorandomness. It's possible to be so simplistic that you overlook important evidence- and that's exactly what Occam's razor has caused you to do in this case. Your explaination just simply doesn't fit ALL the evidence, though it does fit the subset of the evidence you personally consider to be objective and scientific.
But that assumes that the climate never changes. Which we all know doesn't happen.
No, climate change alone lacking a motivation for mutation can only kill, not save. Extermination, not speciation; species exist because of either random or deterministic mutation.
Educate yourself. If you're going to go around arguing that a random event is the result of divine intervention and that the results of any system based on random events cannot be scientifically explained, then you should just shut down your PC right now, and stop taking flu shots.
Why would I avoid the God-given gift of intellect, and the miracles that it creates? I'm not saying that these things cannot be scientifically explained- I'm saying that by the definitions of science given in this discussion so far, these things are not science.
There's a difference- I'm not saying I disagree with random events, I'm saying there is a problem with our definition of what is science, at a very basic level.
I begin to understand the balance of your argument (although I don't really understand how you can make the above claim). If I accepted that the mathematical concept of a probability distribution were, in fact, theological in nature, then I would have to agree with you that the Theory of Evolution, and in fact, most scientific discoveries since the middle ages, were therefore theological in nature, and should not be taught in public schools.
Actually, I go a step further than that- that this proves only that the separation between theology and science, and thus between church and state, was a false one; the real danger is the separation of government and business.
But I think this is as silly as claiming that the concept of, for instance, multiplication is theological in nature.
It was originally. Theologies are just models for describing what we see.
Probability distribution is just a tool for describing the number of times a certain event is likely to happen in a given sample. It's purely a mathematical concept. If you can't see the difference between an abstract, mathematical concept, and a theological statement of belief, then I suppose our discussion has found its logical terminus.
I hope so- but something tells me it hasn't. Abstract is the key word here- all abstract concepts have their basis in religious belief.
Do you accept that there exist phenomena whose behavior could be explained by probability theory, such as radioactive decay?
Actually, I claim that while probability theory is usefull for describing radioactive decay, probability theory can't actually EXPLAIN anything at all- not with any accruacy or certainty.
I don't believe in a capricious or interventionist God. In my mind, God's smart enough to create the rules such that he doesn't have to break them to have things happen the way he wants. I don't buy into a God capable of creating the universe, but who has to keep tinkering with it to keep it running.
But oddly enough we come out at the same place. Only an indeterministic universe is unstable enough for God to need to keep tinkering with it- a deterministic universe could be set up at the begining, and we're just not smart enough yet to see it.
Your comments speak volumes. Do you seriously stand by these statements? Do you believe that these stand on par with the arguments of Intelligent Design?
My argument is that humanity simply isn't advanced enough to know either way- so in a way, I'm not actually arguing EITHER side. I'm saying we're too stupid to decide.
That's a rather unanswered question, but to paraphrase Hawkings, even if it is fully deterministic, it doesn't matter anyways.
Hawkings is only useful when contemplating the realm of human experience.
Your little playground taunt/tantrum isn't terribly impressive, nor is your pathetic attempt at a rhetorical reworking of the word "cult". You don't demonstrate your point by simply turning into a hamfisted propagandist.
I'll assume you don't know much about quantum mechanics. QM tells us that while the motion of particles is random at a certain scale, their interactions ARE predictable. In fact, that is what QM does: it describes the interactions of particles. (I'll avoid a tangent discussing the school of thought that there is no such thing as particles, but rather a universe of intricate power-relationships. Google is your friend.)
So in other words, you've just flipped definitions on me, and are now claiming a deterministic universe given enough information. Welcome to ID.
Lack of intent is not theological, it is observational. The randomness we have seen implies a lack of intent. If we saw patterns, we might assume intent. But the inputs to evolution are random. More specifically, they are random variations of a pattern. Natural selection culls disadvantageous mutations.
If your inputs are random, so are your outputs- GIGO affects everything. But if your inputs are deterministic, then predictions become possible- but deterministic inputs imply an intent EVEN IF WE CAN'T SEE WHAT THAT INTENT IS.
I think the real reason people get so hot and bothered about evolution is that it indicates we're Just Animals. There is no miraculous proof of a Creator. Evolution essentially tells us we aren't special, just lucky and adaptive. Some people can't deal with this, and have to believe in invisible men in the sky to give their lives meaning. I have no problems with people doing that, as long as they don't try to make everyone else believe the same way.
No, my problem is with the implication of an indeterministic universe- at which point any attempt to discover anything becomes useless, because random input DOES create random output.
Evolution, as it is now, ignores theistic issues. Is there a God? Is there not a God? Evolution doesn't care, and doesn't attempt to prove it either way. This is the point IDers miss. Apparently, they can't leave well enough alone, but feel injecting a Higher Power into it is necessary. I don't think it is, and neither does most of the scientific community, or the US federal government.
Depends on whether you believe freedom of includes freedom from- I don't. You have no right to determine what is neccessary and what is not for somebody else.
I assume you're talking about other than the Judeo-Christian God, then. In which case, I might ask you to define "God" as it pertains to you.
That force which created the particles that went into the big bang, and influenced them into the physical laws that came into existance a planck later.
I don't understand that statement. Care to clarify?
Environmetal changes alone are not enough to create a new species- only to exterminate old species. You either need a deterministic universe continuing to create changes- in which case God is implied, because otherwise you wouldn't have a deterministic universe- OR you need an indeterministic universe to continue to create changes.
That is actually a worthwhile point. The only way we can deal with that is to continue gathering data until we begin to see a pattern. For the time being, though, we don't see one, so we don't assume one. That's science: explain what you can prove, keep looking into what you can't.
Except you have assumed that there isn't one to such an extent that you automatically reject any data that shows there is a pattern out of hand. If that's science, then the looking part needs some work.
What cause have we failed to identify?
The pattern, or the lack of one. But that's understandible, because in the end, that's theology.
If you want to talk about causes, then what caused God?
My point is that without the cause, you can't actually distinguish evolution from ID- both are equivalent theology, neither is science.
No, it doesn't. The only implication is that God is not required to understand t
Slashdot Mirror
Our definition of science is fine.
If that's true, why do you have to fall back on theological ideas like a random, indeterministic universe?
Have the integrity to stand by your argument. You are arguing for Intelligent Design based on the premise that it is beyond our ability to explain evolution.
No, actually, that's not my argument. My argument is that human beings are too stupid to actually discover truth, so we make up myths like Evolution and Intelligent Design to explain the unexplainable. Thus the whole argument between the two is idiotic at best- and brainwashing at worst.
This is false. It is not beyond our ability to explain evolution. In fact, we are able to exlain and account for the entire process remarkably well. Nor is it beyond our ability, or yours, to understand evolution.
Fine, if you claim that- explain the WHOLE process, from the first hydrocarbon molecule to DNA to the eventual evolution of human beings and a prediction of where the evolution of our species (which obviously isn't done yet) is heading. And don't fall back on the myth of randomization to do it. Until you can do that, this claim that we are able to explain and account for every piece of the process is false.
It may however be beyond the ability of some to simply accept this process that they can both understand and explain. If so, then that is a problem you are either going to have to come to terms with, or come up with a better explanation for.
I deny that you've even understood or explained the process- and have to fall back on "random" for some portions of it.
If ID is your better explanation, fine. Just don't beset some misfortunate children with such an odious belief system as that. Especially on taxpayers money.
To me, both belief systems are equally "odious". What we should be teaching kids is that human beings are inadequate to come up with anything better than inadequate models to explain a universe far more complex than our own brains- which are pretty darn complex to begin with.
Hoo boy. I can see where you're going. So let me guess, your acccessing none-human experience to give us the inside scoop on whether the universe is deterministic or not.
Nope, it's not that easy. Where I'm going is that humans are incapable of discovering fact- and the whole idea of objective fact existing for human beings is a dogmatic myth at best, at worst a rotten lie used to brainwash kids. See my journal for more information.
Wrong. If I flip 10 coins (random mutation) and discard the ones that come up tails (selection), then I have a set of coins that all show heads. The input was random, the outcome was not.
Flipping 10 coins is NOT random- it's pseudorandom.
Then I hate to tell you this, but many things in the universe are indeterministic.
No, they are not. They only appear to be so due to your limited point of view.
Incorrect. Speciation has been observed.
And thus environmental changes alone are an insufficient explaination without the addition of variation within species. How stupid can you get not to follow that?
Repeating something doesn't make it true. Sorry.
Then why do you keep repeating the idea that randomization exists, when it obviously doesn't?
Who designed the designer?
The designer of the designer of course. No uncaused causes.
It's not frozen.
If it wasn't frozen, you'd accept the proof that ID is science.
The problem, which you keep denying in the face of all argument, is that ID is not science because it ignores tghe basic principles of science.
Which is a problem with the basic principles of science, not with ID.
Ergo, it should not be taught in a science class.
Then neither should your "basic principles of science" which are equally based upon faith. NO double standards allowed, no faith-based crap about how one set of basic principles is "better" than another one. Either accept both as equal, or reject both as lies.
Overall result means nothing unless you can predict the individual genetic line. GIGO.
If you randomly (for any reasonable definition of random) place hydrogen atoms in a bounded region of otherwise empty space... a number of hydrogen atoms equal in mass to the sun... at most a fixed percentage of that mass could be expelled in various directions with the rest eventually spontaneously organizing into a star (or perhaps a binary star pair). Of course the fine grained location of every particle of the output is as random as the input, but the gross structure of the output is powerfully non-random to arbitrarily high certainty.
:)
:)
What a very contradictory statement. Something is either random, or it is merely pretending to be random because we don't have all the input neccessary to understand the output. There's nothing supernatural going on here- each and every one of those particles is moving according to fixed phsical laws- and you CAN trace an individual particle through all the stages from input to output. That's only pseudo-random, not truly random.
If you want to turn to religion for those other questions and to have faith in your religion, fine. But our constitution forbids anyone to seize the force of government to take sides and push one religion over another. Resolve religious questions outside of government-run highschools.
The point is- science is incomplete enough to require faith to believe it's claims. Because it requires faith- then by the same rule in the constitution you believe in and I completely disagree with, you need to banish science as well. Mathematics too. In fact, the only things I can think you *might* be able to teach is law and the Constitution itself- ooops, no, that mentions God.
All of human knowledge ultimately rests on faith and belief- pretending that it is otherwise is a lie.
Most people, and in particular our court system, roughly agree on a rather different and more fuctional line between religion and other-than-religion than you appear to want to use. Heh
Most people are liars in this respect, and are attempting to hide the truth from children.
If you want to say there are philsophical issues behind "I saw Bob pull out a gun and shoot Bill", well ok... there are philosophical issues. However if you're Bob, the court is still going to send you to prison where you can mull over the philosphical issue of whether the bars you think you see on your cell are real.
Yes, and that's a significant error on the part of the court- and we should say so.
You are missunderstanding Quantum Mechanics. As the prior posts already wrote, Heisenberg uncertainty is NOT(!!!) merely a physical limitation on our ability to measure something. QM says that the information physically does not exist in the first place, not until it is measured.
And I'm saying Heisenberg is making the same mistake of any other Dogmatic preacher- mistaking his own point of view, or humanity's point of view, for a universal point of view.
What you are trying to suggest is a "hidden value" model, one where there is a real value already there that we simply cannot see and are unable to measure. There have been experiments done showing all "hidden value" models incorrect and impossible, showing that that the desired information is not and cannot already be there, not in any normal meaning of the words.
And exactly how do you prove that negative? The interferance of the human observer creates the problem of the hidden value model to begin with- you'd have to remove the human brain from the observation COMPLETELY- including observing the results of the experiment. Include the human brain, you introduce bias. There is no way around that.
Note that while this descibes an inderterministic observable universe, it can in fact be laid on top of a purely deterministic system. For exaple there is the "multiverse model" that basically says that every outcome that can happen does happen. Complete determinism. However we would only observe a single viewpoint, we would only observe one half of any particular branching point. The branch itself is deterministic, and there will be an exact copy of us observing each outcome on each branch, but which side of the branch any particular instance of us would subjectively observe is indeterminate.
I'm familiar with that potential explaination- heck, it solves a lot of my personal history, like why I remember nuclear weapons being used on Tripoli, Libya in the 1980s when nobody else does. However, it's a religious explaination ultimately- it requires faith to believe.
But that is merely one of many possible explanations, and is beyond what QM does or can say at the moment. In any case, it still says nothing either way about God.
And thus is a primarily *religious* interpretation of the results.
Evolution makes many predictions
How do you predict a random start point? When you can predict a random start point, you can claim Evolution makes predictions- until then, the very word "random" in the start point makes evolution unpredictable.
The fact that you are ignorant of those experiments does not mean you can use your ignorance to claim evolution is not scientific.
Experiments that start with random events and prove only preconcieved notions are called observations, not experiments.
For just one example, evolution includes the element of common decent with variation. It predicts that genetic analysis of life on earth will fall into an extremely strict tree pattern. Thousands if not millions of such genetic analysis experiments have been run in the past several years and they have conclusively confirmed that extremely strict tree pattern.
That's not prediction, that's observation. Anybody looking at their own family tree can see that so-called "prediction".
Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment, Result... with that result being fed back in as a new observation. An ongoing loop of refinement and increasing accuracy and increasing understanding.
What increasing accuracy? How can you have increasing accuracy when you start with randomization as an assumption?
Science should be taught in the same manner as physics and chemistry and other fields of science.
Only AFTER it becomes hard science- becomes predictable, with NO random elements.
Evolution should not be singled out for attack by the same sort of people who attacked Galileo's sun-centered solar system because their "Literal Word Of God Scripture" said the earth did not move and that it was the center of the universe.
I don't- my latest journal entry attacks environmentalism on exactly the same premise- that hard science is indeed very hard to achieve, and it's nearly impossible to separate it from religion.
The word "random" is commonly used for anything that is which is outside the scope of discussion which is effectively arbitrary and could be substituted by almost any other similarly complex effectively unpredictable sequence.
Like GOD? This sentence alone is proof that you've just replaced one undefinable and unpredictable dogma with another, and based the theory on it. Might as well just admit to the proof and say "God done it" instead of "random"- at least more kids would know what you're talking about. But no, you've got to HIDE the truth behind a concept.
Here, I actually agree with you. When people have mechanisms by which they can get and feel fake success (material gain) without consequences (having to pay for it someday) the quality of life for them (demoralization, no incentive to try) and everyone else (welfare subsidies) goes down the drain. Enter the 'gold collar' class.
And this is *directly* related to the spiral our whole economy is in- it's been 29 years since the United States of America made a profit in our exports overall. Because of that, instead of say, punishing the stockholders and C-level executives for stupid trade decisions, they squeeze the labor class, who earns less money every year. Which throws people on welfare, after they go bankrupt, trying to maintain a lifestyle that makes no sense for their current income, which is far less than it was just a few years ago.
I agree one should not buy a mansion in Mississippi.
Or Oregon. Or New York. Or anyplace else that is seeing jobs shipped overseas. If you're a renter, you can move to where the jobs are going- India or China or Japan. If you're an owner, you're up a creek without a paddle.
But elsewhere, while you may be tied to an asset, at least you have one, and one which is about the only thing you can use to get ahead amid the inevitable inflationary pressures.
Eventually, the housing bubble will burst and even that will be hit by deflation. The United States is a failing economy- being born here is starting out life two strikes behind.
Crime and disunity among the powerless form the basis for the public discontent communists use to gain power - and the best way to create these conditions is to create communities of dependent renters (e.g. China).
Actually, there's another great way to do so- but once again China leads the way. You can also create disunity among the powerless by paying some more than others and then insisting that all are created equal when it's obvious that they're not. In China, the government in Bejing vs the rural east is obvious. In America, it's CEO salaries that are 400x minimum wage, while the same company hires illegal aliens and moves manufacturing overseas to save money and avoid paying even minimum wage.
I'm currently a homeowner- and lost my retirement and meager investments to stay one in the last 5 years. Can't sell- I owe more on the house than it is worth now that the Silicon Forest is going the way of the Silicon Valley- to China. In many ways, the Chinese have won- sold us, as Breshnev said, the rope to hang ourselves, at WalMart for a premium price advertised as low.
We really should move this to My journal where you'll get a better feel for where I'm coming from on this whole issue. It comes down to certainty and facts for me. Neither of which human beings are capable of, as much as we pretend to be.
Fair enough. It is a difficult balance. Yet I believe the correct balance point is much further into the neutral territory than you seem to.
In fact, my very first response is to refer you to my journal- there is no neutral territory between religions, the closest you can get is teaching tolerance of all religions and a lack of exclusion. The link above is to my journal, where I also link to a speech by one of America's favorite anti-science fiction writers on the subject.
All religions? Really? Including Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Wicca, and Druidism? How about Satanism? And Scientology? And, for that matter, plain old atheism? And how about the dozens or hundreds of variants within each of those blanket labels, like Catholics, Mormons, and Unificationists?
I have no problem with it- in fact, it would assure at least 3 parties a week in grade school, since the absolute best way to teach young children about various traditions is through parties based on those traditions.
Should all of these religions be taught as Truth? It'll take a very long time to get through the science curriculum that way.
Oh too bad- we actually need to expect the schools to TEACH something.
Or shall we filter them all down the their common demoninator, and teach that? If we do, then we are teaching just the science itself.
True enough- and that's the real role of the scientific method.
Again, there are more than just these three religions, and not all of them teach the same moral codes. It is the state's job to teach the morality codified within its own laws, but no more than that; the rest is up to the individual.
Oh, that's been real useful. Right now in America, we're failing to teach either- just look at our corporate world, where the phrase "It's just business" is used to excuse the worst personal ethical violations.
I wouldn't say that it's half the subject. We haven't even established that the theology of the ancient mathematicians is even relevant to the study of mathematics.
It's relevant because it's the WHY behind the assumptions and axioms that lie underneath all of mathematics- the foundation of the model. Without that framework, there is no why, there is just "because I said so".
But in any case, yes--it's not the job of the public schools to put knowledge in a theological context. It can't be, because there is no context that would satisfy all religions, so it has to be up to the individual.
Incorrect- there is a context- and that context is the human being. Religion is a part of being human that cannot and should not be expunged- do so and you run the risk of creating a new religion when it comes out somewhere else.
OK, haven't we been through this already? It feels like this is where I came in. The word "random" does not imply "godless".
With a God, the universe is deterministic- it was created for a purpose, and everything in it conforms to that purpose according to the scientific laws we are now discovering. Every particle in the universe is a part of that purpose. The only way you can have random is to have an indeterministic universe- one where particles follow random laws that are not discoverable at all. Random laws would be the ultimate proof against a God- it would leave us with only two conclusions, that either the mind of God is so formless and stupid that there are no laws, no purpose, or there is no God.
You have yet to address either of these two problems with the idea of random mutation and variation WITHIN species.
Asserting that there is
Your "think for yourself, little grasshopper" style fails not to amuse me.
It's only that way that I can get people to think- far to many accept the dogma of "authorities", religious and secular, and think they're not just doing what every fundamentalist has done since the begining of time.
For another look at this- and to get this discussion out of this arena and towards something far more profitable, see my latest journal entry on the subject.
Mutation and selection are the "motivation" of evolution in exactly the same way electromagnetism and neclear forces are the "motivation" of sunshine.
Exactly my point- without The Mind Of God, without the laws that create the universe, nothing occurs. Newton understood this- but in our separation of Church and Science, we've lost that- and it's a mighty big piece of EVIDENCE to DENY.
While this thesis is a worthwhile subject for debate in itself--and I'd love to go into the pre-Christian origins of algebra and multiplication--it's completely beside the point.
I said nothing that would limit us to a CHRISTIAN God. Either the concept of God is greater than EVERY religion, or it is not worth anything; religions are merely models of ways to look at the universe, no different from science.
Here's the thing: you're completely misunderstanding the intent of separation of church and state. It's not about keeping God away from the people. It's about allowing people to hold their own religion. And here's the key point: there's more than one religion.
I have no problem with that- freedom of religion is a fine idea. But when it gets twisted into freedom FROM religion, that somehow you're protected from hearing about other religions in the public sphere or that science must exist free FROM religion, that's when I have a problem.
Freedom of religion, as guaranteed by our Constitution, means that each citizen must have the freedom to worship his or her religion of choice, without fear of persecution from the state or from neighbors. This means the state cannot promote any one religion over any other--all religions must be treated with equal respect. This includes Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, as well as the doctrine of atheism.
I've got no problem with that either. Education however is NOT persecution, it binds us together as one people; thus all religions SHOULD be taught.
This means that any education promoted by the state must be free of any explicit references to any one religion.
No it doesn't- that's freedom FROM not freedom OF.
Mathematics is one such discipline:
The religion of the Pythagoreans you mean.
a Muslim and a Buddhist can equally appreciate that 6 * 3 = 18. (Even a fundamentalist Christian is likely to agree to this.)
Yes, and the eightfold path, the ten commandments, and the Quran all essentially teach the same morality- but you'd have them banned.
Now, if a particular person wishes to reflect upon the divinity inherent in multiplication, that's his private business.
And yet- you fail to see that you're only teaching half the subject by failing to mention it's religious roots.
See, here's the separation of church and state at work: nowhere in a science textbook will you see something like "there is no God" or "so-and-so happened all by itself, proving the absence of God" or "God caused thus-and-so to happen" or "Allah's divine wisdom showed the way for this-and-that" or "Through the grace of Lord Shiva, we now have whatever-it-is." There are no references to the Christian God, or any god, or the lack thereof (except in a social sciences context, and then it's always in reference to the people who hold a particular belief). That's the whole point. Each person is free to interpret the knowledge within the context of his or her own religion; the knowledge itself does not come encumbered by a particular religious belief.
You've apparently never read a modern textbook on evolution, where a random universe is a neccessary precondition of the whole idea. Without random mutation and variation within species, atheistic evolution falls apart. Theistic evolution, also known as Intelligent Design, doesn't require a indeterministic universe for evolution to be true. Only the second is compatible with all religions, the first denies that religion exists.
This is the difference between the Theory of Evolution and the doctrine of Intelligent Design. The ToE requires no particular religious belief in order to accept it--like any true science, it is independent of religion,
Bull. It requires that we accept the concept of an indeterministic universe.
On one thing Marxist Hacker 42 is right: we have replaced the theologists with the councils of science and damn right too. The scientists pursuit of objective knowledge has given us knowledge beyond our dreams. We are where we are because of science. If you wish to go down the route of theological dominance, then I believe you will go down the route of terror, murder torture. Believe this or be shot. Wipe out all the opponents, their writings, their race. Look what happened to the pagans in western europe. You want to live like the taleban, go ahead. You can count me out and actively against the religionists.
Look what you are doing right now to the religionists- it's no different from anybody else espousing a dogma at the sacrifice of truth. But if you or anyone else thinks that "facts" and "evidence" exists- I suggest they read this Journal Entry on Facts and Evidence on the Internet.
You are clearly using the word "theological" in a different, significantly more general, sense that the original poster, and I am quite sure you realise this..
I certainly do realize this.
The abstract concept of "2", or of "gravity", or of "abstract concept" have no relation to religion whatsoever.
Actually they all do. 2 is related to the mathematical philosopher Pythagoreas, whose search for perfect numbers was a big time religion in ancient greece (more so the concepts of PI and the theorem that is named after him, but yes, mathematics was once a religion is the point). Gravity was discovered as a part of Newton's philosophical musings about the mind of God. All abstract concepts discovered before 1800 or so are similar; it's only after the American Revolution that we got the separation of Church and State, followed quickly by the separation of Church and Science. To some more than others, that was a loss, not a gain. A significant sign of this loss is that you did NOT know that mathematics was once a religion. But don't take MY word for it- look it up for yourself.
Randomness is a much simpler idea than God. You need some idea of randomness, or a pattern if you exist, to understand the universe, because it occurs everywhere. Now, you can say this randomness is real randomness or a pattern coming from the mind of God. But in the latter case, we look for the simplest possible God which could do this - and that's a God which does nothing but generate something that looks like a bunch of random numbers. Which by my standards is not intelligent - I have seen a PCI card that can do it.
The PCI card has you fooled to- that's not real randomness, just pesudorandomness. It's possible to be so simplistic that you overlook important evidence- and that's exactly what Occam's razor has caused you to do in this case. Your explaination just simply doesn't fit ALL the evidence, though it does fit the subset of the evidence you personally consider to be objective and scientific.
I thought the marine motto was Always Faithful...
But that assumes that the climate never changes. Which we all know doesn't happen.
No, climate change alone lacking a motivation for mutation can only kill, not save. Extermination, not speciation; species exist because of either random or deterministic mutation.
Educate yourself. If you're going to go around arguing that a random event is the result of divine intervention and that the results of any system based on random events cannot be scientifically explained, then you should just shut down your PC right now, and stop taking flu shots.
Why would I avoid the God-given gift of intellect, and the miracles that it creates? I'm not saying that these things cannot be scientifically explained- I'm saying that by the definitions of science given in this discussion so far, these things are not science.
There's a difference- I'm not saying I disagree with random events, I'm saying there is a problem with our definition of what is science, at a very basic level.
I begin to understand the balance of your argument (although I don't really understand how you can make the above claim). If I accepted that the mathematical concept of a probability distribution were, in fact, theological in nature, then I would have to agree with you that the Theory of Evolution, and in fact, most scientific discoveries since the middle ages, were therefore theological in nature, and should not be taught in public schools.
Actually, I go a step further than that- that this proves only that the separation between theology and science, and thus between church and state, was a false one; the real danger is the separation of government and business.
But I think this is as silly as claiming that the concept of, for instance, multiplication is theological in nature.
It was originally. Theologies are just models for describing what we see.
Probability distribution is just a tool for describing the number of times a certain event is likely to happen in a given sample. It's purely a mathematical concept. If you can't see the difference between an abstract, mathematical concept, and a theological statement of belief, then I suppose our discussion has found its logical terminus.
I hope so- but something tells me it hasn't. Abstract is the key word here- all abstract concepts have their basis in religious belief.
Do you accept that there exist phenomena whose behavior could be explained by probability theory, such as radioactive decay?
Actually, I claim that while probability theory is usefull for describing radioactive decay, probability theory can't actually EXPLAIN anything at all- not with any accruacy or certainty.
I don't believe in a capricious or interventionist God. In my mind, God's smart enough to create the rules such that he doesn't have to break them to have things happen the way he wants. I don't buy into a God capable of creating the universe, but who has to keep tinkering with it to keep it running.
But oddly enough we come out at the same place. Only an indeterministic universe is unstable enough for God to need to keep tinkering with it- a deterministic universe could be set up at the begining, and we're just not smart enough yet to see it.
Your comments speak volumes. Do you seriously stand by these statements? Do you believe that these stand on par with the arguments of Intelligent Design?
My argument is that humanity simply isn't advanced enough to know either way- so in a way, I'm not actually arguing EITHER side. I'm saying we're too stupid to decide.
That's a rather unanswered question, but to paraphrase Hawkings, even if it is fully deterministic, it doesn't matter anyways.
Hawkings is only useful when contemplating the realm of human experience.
Your little playground taunt/tantrum isn't terribly impressive, nor is your pathetic attempt at a rhetorical reworking of the word "cult". You don't demonstrate your point by simply turning into a hamfisted propagandist.
I'm just matching my technique to my oponent.
I'll assume you don't know much about quantum mechanics. QM tells us that while the motion of particles is random at a certain scale, their interactions ARE predictable. In fact, that is what QM does: it describes the interactions of particles. (I'll avoid a tangent discussing the school of thought that there is no such thing as particles, but rather a universe of intricate power-relationships. Google is your friend.)
So in other words, you've just flipped definitions on me, and are now claiming a deterministic universe given enough information. Welcome to ID.
Lack of intent is not theological, it is observational. The randomness we have seen implies a lack of intent. If we saw patterns, we might assume intent. But the inputs to evolution are random. More specifically, they are random variations of a pattern. Natural selection culls disadvantageous mutations.
If your inputs are random, so are your outputs- GIGO affects everything. But if your inputs are deterministic, then predictions become possible- but deterministic inputs imply an intent EVEN IF WE CAN'T SEE WHAT THAT INTENT IS.
I think the real reason people get so hot and bothered about evolution is that it indicates we're Just Animals. There is no miraculous proof of a Creator. Evolution essentially tells us we aren't special, just lucky and adaptive. Some people can't deal with this, and have to believe in invisible men in the sky to give their lives meaning. I have no problems with people doing that, as long as they don't try to make everyone else believe the same way.
No, my problem is with the implication of an indeterministic universe- at which point any attempt to discover anything becomes useless, because random input DOES create random output.
Evolution, as it is now, ignores theistic issues. Is there a God? Is there not a God? Evolution doesn't care, and doesn't attempt to prove it either way. This is the point IDers miss. Apparently, they can't leave well enough alone, but feel injecting a Higher Power into it is necessary. I don't think it is, and neither does most of the scientific community, or the US federal government.
Depends on whether you believe freedom of includes freedom from- I don't. You have no right to determine what is neccessary and what is not for somebody else.
I assume you're talking about other than the Judeo-Christian God, then. In which case, I might ask you to define "God" as it pertains to you.
That force which created the particles that went into the big bang, and influenced them into the physical laws that came into existance a planck later.
I don't understand that statement. Care to clarify?
Environmetal changes alone are not enough to create a new species- only to exterminate old species. You either need a deterministic universe continuing to create changes- in which case God is implied, because otherwise you wouldn't have a deterministic universe- OR you need an indeterministic universe to continue to create changes.
That is actually a worthwhile point. The only way we can deal with that is to continue gathering data until we begin to see a pattern. For the time being, though, we don't see one, so we don't assume one. That's science: explain what you can prove, keep looking into what you can't.
Except you have assumed that there isn't one to such an extent that you automatically reject any data that shows there is a pattern out of hand. If that's science, then the looking part needs some work.
What cause have we failed to identify?
The pattern, or the lack of one. But that's understandible, because in the end, that's theology.
If you want to talk about causes, then what caused God?
My point is that without the cause, you can't actually distinguish evolution from ID- both are equivalent theology, neither is science.
No, it doesn't. The only implication is that God is not required to understand t