Up until the last few weeks, Cygwin has been in permanent beta. Recently, they decided to release a CD with what they call Cygwin 1.0 which contains everything from the latest development snapshot with a whole bunch of tools precompiled, more than in the usual beta net release. The CD comes with support. That is where the $99 comes from. You can download just about everything on the CD from the web; you just have to do a lot more work. Everything on the CD will be released as Cygwin B21 on the net, unsupported. Robert Kern
Barring God coming down and demonstrating his existence in a direct fashion (which most christians call 'the end of the world' see the book of Revelations) this scientific dogma denies God without using the scientific method. How are you going to 'adapt and evolve' science when you deny Him a priori?
Your 7th grade science teacher presented this badly if that is how you view science's naturalism. Science most certainly does not take the position that "God does not exist because we cannot deal with Him experimentally" (which is what you seem to believe is what science says but is quite different from the quote you gave. Mull over the differences for a while; it's worth the time).
Science does not "deny Him a priori." Science simply excludes God from its domain of investigation. Science is about discovering how the natural world works and what principles it appears to obey. It cannot pronounce any judgement, a priori or a posteriori, on the existence or actions of a supernatural entity.
A key goal of scientific investigation is being able to predict future events given past events. Our ability to do so rests on being able to construct models of systems' behavior. We cannot construct any such models that incorporate unbounded, supernatural entities because their unbounded natures allow any and every possibility. For example, if I were considering Newtonian gravity, I can predict that the planets of the solar system follow roughly elliptic orbits and that the perihelions (the point of the orbit farthest from the sun) of such orbits will not change. We observe perihelion precession in Mercury. Thus, the observation disconfirms Newtonian gravity.
Now, if we were to consider the conjecture that angels were pushing the planets in their orbits, it is perfectly possible that the angels push the planets in orbits exactly consistent with Newtonian gravity. It is equally possible for them to push them in orbits with perihelion precession. It is equally possible that they push the planets in square orbits; the angels are not bound by natural constraints like conservation of angular momentum. When you consider supernatural entities, you cannot predict anything; all possiblities are equally probable. The actual results are merely the result of the whims of these entities.
Now, none of this is to say that angels aren't pushing the planets around and that they are behind gravity, not any instantaneous force or spacetime curvature or gravitons. Like I said, it is prefectly possible that angels are deciding to push the planets around in accordance with what we calculate would be the orbits if General Relativity were the cause. It's just not a worthwhile hypothesis.
So, what are the reasons for considering intelligent design in biology?
In particular no one ever argues that there are inconsistencies with the theory of gravity.
There's plenty of argument. It's just that no government or religion has an opinion on the subject.
Check out the LANL archive of physics preprints, especially in the General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology section. They argue about inconsistencies all the time (or rather, how to eliminate them).
Also remember that the people who raise "inconsistencies" in evolutionary theory are usually not scientists or even people who have a rudimentary knowledge of what evolution is. (And yes, before anyone brings him up, I know of Michael Behe. He is a biochemist. One can be a successful biochemist, if highly specialized, while being very confused about evolution. I know; I worked in a biochemistry lab for a year.)
Okay, let's start with the definitions of law and theory as used in science. A law is simply a concise statement summarizing a large number of observations. For example, Kepler's Laws summarize the large number of astronomical observations that he and his mentor(?) Tycho Brahe made on the motions of the planets. Laws do not prohibit anything. Kepler's Laws do not prohibit the orbits of the planets from being other than ellipses. In fact, they aren't ellipses. Proposed laws have been broken in the past (e.g. parity conservation) as new observations contradict the law.
A theory, on the other hand, is an explanation for a large body of observations. A theory proposes a mechanism (or mechanisms) by which those observations came about. It cannot be "proven" in any rigorous sense, because proof is not a part of science. A future observation can always contradict and thus disconfirm a theory or a law. In this case, the theory of evolution is not that evolution has occured, but the mechanisms behind its occurence. You propose that the Second Law prohibits evolution's occurence. That would be a case of a law and an observation's contradicting each other. If such a contradiction occured, the law would be discarded, not the observation.
In any case, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not prohibit evolution's occurence. First, entropy and disorder are not equivalent concepts. Thermodynamics delas with entropy in a very quantitative, exact way. Using qualitiative metaphors to deduce conclusions ("Because the Second Law states that entropy cannot decrease and evolution is the decrease of disorder, evolution cannot happen") is not valid. The change in entropy of a system is simply the heat transfered into or out of a system divided by the absolute temperature of that system at the time of the transfer.
Local decreases in entropy can and do occur because the local areas are not closed; they interact with the rest of the Universe. A directed energy input (and by directed, I mean "having direction" not "having an intelligent agent behind it") can and does decrease local entropy at the expense of a larger increase in entropy elsewhere. For example, energy is directed towards a refrigerator and the entropy of the refrigerator decreases (heat is transfered to outside of the refrigerator). Some would say that an anology between the refirgerator and the Earth is unfair; the refrigerator is designed and the Earth is not (in the mainstream scientific worldview). Well, the Second Law doesn't care. Thermodynamics is not concerned with the fine details of a system when determining what changes are consistent with it. Only the energy changes are important. If you don't want to believe me, fine. Just read a thermodynamics textbook.
If evolution does contradict the Second Law, why doesn't the development of a chicken from and egg? It's the same type of change; only the magnitudes are different. I don't remember any clause of the Second Law stating that small violations were consistent but large ones weren't. Or does God "break" the Second Law for, well, just about every metabolic process? I personally don't think He does.
As to the other laws of thermodynamics, I don't see how evolution creates or destroys energy or causes anything to reach absolute zero.
Finally, it's about time that this discussion transferred to the talk.origins newsgroup. This discussion can be handled far more readily on USENET in the newsgroup that was created for this very purpose. It would help if you read the FAQs. Yes, they are biased towards the view of mainstream science (as they state right on the first page). However, they have an extensive set of links to creationist websites and creationist responses to the material in the Archive. They are probably a better source of creationist links than any creationist site. Most of the FAQs have references to the relevant scientific literature. You do not have to take our word for anything. It's all in the library.
Axioms are not accepted on faith in any sense of the word. They are taken as given to give a framework in which one can make mathematical deductions. Deductive logic can take you from one idea to another and show that one idea logically entails another. Where do we start? From the axioms.
The results we can derive depend on what axioms we accept. What axioms we accept differ from instance to instance as we try to solve different classes of problems. In Euclidean geometry, we accept as an axiom that given a line and a point not on that line, there is only one line through that point which is parallel to the original line. Any results that we derive based on that axiom are then only necessarily true when that axiom holds. Thus, if I were designing a computer game that took place in a Euclidean world, I could apply those results to my heart's content because the axiom holds in that instance.
On the other hand, if I were to try solving problems in General Relativity, where that axiom does not hold, I could not use the results which I had derived.
One can (and does) change the axioms one accepts as long as all of the axioms accepted in a particular instance are mutually consistent. The axioms you hold for doing real-number arithmetic are different from the ones you use when computing with (say) Clifford algebras.
For example, real numbers are commutative with respect to multiplication. a*b = b*a when both a and b are real numbers. The commutative property of real numbers is only an axiom that we accept because we can get useful results out of that axiom. Rather than an axiom's truth being defined by whether or not a*b actually does equal b*a, the real numbers are in part defined by that axiom.
You can generate a Clifford algebra by not accepting this axiom (and adding a few desiderata into the mix). Thus, in general a*b != b*a in a Clifford algebra. This property does not make Clifford algebras untrue. It is simply that we don't use a particular axiom.
The logical truth of a statement can only be deduced from the background, as it were. What is true against one background of axioms may not be against another.
Now, back to science. Science uses mathematics as a tool. Which axioms a scientists accepts for a particular calculation depends on what axioms he can realistically apply to the situation. When measuring the volume of a room, for instance, one accepts that the axioms that apply to real numbers apply to the length measurements one makes. The axioms may not actually hold because, for example, space may be quantized and not continuous, but our errors in physical measurement make such a distinction pointless. To the limit of the accuracy of our physical measurements, length quantities seem to obey the axioms of real numbers. We can then apply our commutativity axiom to show that V = l*w*h = w*h*l =...
Should evidence show that an axiom does not hold in a particular instance, that axiom its consequences are dropped and work continues with the axioms that do hold. For example, we had once believed that space obeyed the axioms of Euclidean geometry. Early this century, we found that we were wrong, and we had to replace the non-applicable axioms with others.
Slashdot Mirror
Up until the last few weeks, Cygwin has been in permanent beta. Recently, they decided to release a CD with what they call Cygwin 1.0 which contains everything from the latest development snapshot with a whole bunch of tools precompiled, more than in the usual beta net release. The CD comes with support. That is where the $99 comes from. You can download just about everything on the CD from the web; you just have to do a lot more work. Everything on the CD will be released as Cygwin B21 on the net, unsupported.
Robert Kern
Barring God coming down and demonstrating his existence in a direct fashion (which most christians call 'the end of the world' see the book of Revelations) this scientific dogma denies God without using the scientific method. How are you going to 'adapt and evolve' science when you deny Him a priori?
Your 7th grade science teacher presented this badly if that is how you view science's naturalism. Science most certainly does not take the position that "God does not exist because we cannot deal with Him experimentally" (which is what you seem to believe is what science says but is quite different from the quote you gave. Mull over the differences for a while; it's worth the time).
Science does not "deny Him a priori." Science simply excludes God from its domain of investigation. Science is about discovering how the natural world works and what principles it appears to obey. It cannot pronounce any judgement, a priori or a posteriori, on the existence or actions of a supernatural entity.
A key goal of scientific investigation is being able to predict future events given past events. Our ability to do so rests on being able to construct models of systems' behavior. We cannot construct any such models that incorporate unbounded, supernatural entities because their unbounded natures allow any and every possibility. For example, if I were considering Newtonian gravity, I can predict that the planets of the solar system follow roughly elliptic orbits and that the perihelions (the point of the orbit farthest from the sun) of such orbits will not change. We observe perihelion precession in Mercury. Thus, the observation disconfirms Newtonian gravity.
Now, if we were to consider the conjecture that angels were pushing the planets in their orbits, it is perfectly possible that the angels push the planets in orbits exactly consistent with Newtonian gravity. It is equally possible for them to push them in orbits with perihelion precession. It is equally possible that they push the planets in square orbits; the angels are not bound by natural constraints like conservation of angular momentum. When you consider supernatural entities, you cannot predict anything; all possiblities are equally probable. The actual results are merely the result of the whims of these entities.
Now, none of this is to say that angels aren't pushing the planets around and that they are behind gravity, not any instantaneous force or spacetime curvature or gravitons. Like I said, it is prefectly possible that angels are deciding to push the planets around in accordance with what we calculate would be the orbits if General Relativity were the cause. It's just not a worthwhile hypothesis.
So, what are the reasons for considering intelligent design in biology?
Robert Kern
In particular no one ever argues that there are inconsistencies with the theory of gravity.
There's plenty of argument. It's just that no government or religion has an opinion on the subject.
Check out the LANL archive of physics preprints, especially in the General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology section. They argue about inconsistencies all the time (or rather, how to eliminate them).
Also remember that the people who raise "inconsistencies" in evolutionary theory are usually not scientists or even people who have a rudimentary knowledge of what evolution is. (And yes, before anyone brings him up, I know of Michael Behe. He is a biochemist. One can be a successful biochemist, if highly specialized, while being very confused about evolution. I know; I worked in a biochemistry lab for a year.)
Robert Kern
kern at caltech.edu
Robert Kern
Okay, let's start with the definitions of law and theory as used in science. A law is simply a concise statement summarizing a large number of observations. For example, Kepler's Laws summarize the large number of astronomical observations that he and his mentor(?) Tycho Brahe made on the motions of the planets. Laws do not prohibit anything. Kepler's Laws do not prohibit the orbits of the planets from being other than ellipses. In fact, they aren't ellipses. Proposed laws have been broken in the past (e.g. parity conservation) as new observations contradict the law.
A theory, on the other hand, is an explanation for a large body of observations. A theory proposes a mechanism (or mechanisms) by which those observations came about. It cannot be "proven" in any rigorous sense, because proof is not a part of science. A future observation can always contradict and thus disconfirm a theory or a law. In this case, the theory of evolution is not that evolution has occured, but the mechanisms behind its occurence. You propose that the Second Law prohibits evolution's occurence. That would be a case of a law and an observation's contradicting each other. If such a contradiction occured, the law would be discarded, not the observation.
In any case, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not prohibit evolution's occurence. First, entropy and disorder are not equivalent concepts. Thermodynamics delas with entropy in a very quantitative, exact way. Using qualitiative metaphors to deduce conclusions ("Because the Second Law states that entropy cannot decrease and evolution is the decrease of disorder, evolution cannot happen") is not valid. The change in entropy of a system is simply the heat transfered into or out of a system divided by the absolute temperature of that system at the time of the transfer.
Local decreases in entropy can and do occur because the local areas are not closed; they interact with the rest of the Universe. A directed energy input (and by directed, I mean "having direction" not "having an intelligent agent behind it") can and does decrease local entropy at the expense of a larger increase in entropy elsewhere. For example, energy is directed towards a refrigerator and the entropy of the refrigerator decreases (heat is transfered to outside of the refrigerator). Some would say that an anology between the refirgerator and the Earth is unfair; the refrigerator is designed and the Earth is not (in the mainstream scientific worldview). Well, the Second Law doesn't care. Thermodynamics is not concerned with the fine details of a system when determining what changes are consistent with it. Only the energy changes are important. If you don't want to believe me, fine. Just read a thermodynamics textbook.
If evolution does contradict the Second Law, why doesn't the development of a chicken from and egg? It's the same type of change; only the magnitudes are different. I don't remember any clause of the Second Law stating that small violations were consistent but large ones weren't. Or does God "break" the Second Law for, well, just about every metabolic process? I personally don't think He does.
As to the other laws of thermodynamics, I don't see how evolution creates or destroys energy or causes anything to reach absolute zero.
Finally, it's about time that this discussion transferred to the talk.origins newsgroup. This discussion can be handled far more readily on USENET in the newsgroup that was created for this very purpose. It would help if you read the FAQs. Yes, they are biased towards the view of mainstream science (as they state right on the first page). However, they have an extensive set of links to creationist websites and creationist responses to the material in the Archive. They are probably a better source of creationist links than any creationist site. Most of the FAQs have references to the relevant scientific literature. You do not have to take our word for anything. It's all in the library.
Robert Kern
kern at caltech.edu
Robert Kern
Let's see. Where to start?
Axioms are not accepted on faith in any sense of the word. They are taken as given to give a framework in which one can make mathematical deductions. Deductive logic can take you from one idea to another and show that one idea logically entails another. Where do we start? From the axioms.
The results we can derive depend on what axioms we accept. What axioms we accept differ from instance to instance as we try to solve different classes of problems. In Euclidean geometry, we accept as an axiom that given a line and a point not on that line, there is only one line through that point which is parallel to the original line. Any results that we derive based on that axiom are then only necessarily true when that axiom holds. Thus, if I were designing a computer game that took place in a Euclidean world, I could apply those results to my heart's content because the axiom holds in that instance.
On the other hand, if I were to try solving problems in General Relativity, where that axiom does not hold, I could not use the results which I had derived.
One can (and does) change the axioms one accepts as long as all of the axioms accepted in a particular instance are mutually consistent. The axioms you hold for doing real-number arithmetic are different from the ones you use when computing with (say) Clifford algebras.
For example, real numbers are commutative with respect to multiplication. a*b = b*a when both a and b are real numbers. The commutative property of real numbers is only an axiom that we accept because we can get useful results out of that axiom. Rather than an axiom's truth being defined by whether or not a*b actually does equal b*a, the real numbers are in part defined by that axiom.
You can generate a Clifford algebra by not accepting this axiom (and adding a few desiderata into the mix). Thus, in general a*b != b*a in a Clifford algebra. This property does not make Clifford algebras untrue. It is simply that we don't use a particular axiom.
The logical truth of a statement can only be deduced from the background, as it were. What is true against one background of axioms may not be against another.
Now, back to science. Science uses mathematics as a tool. Which axioms a scientists accepts for a particular calculation depends on what axioms he can realistically apply to the situation. When measuring the volume of a room, for instance, one accepts that the axioms that apply to real numbers apply to the length measurements one makes. The axioms may not actually hold because, for example, space may be quantized and not continuous, but our errors in physical measurement make such a distinction pointless. To the limit of the accuracy of our physical measurements, length quantities seem to obey the axioms of real numbers. We can then apply our commutativity axiom to show that V = l*w*h = w*h*l = ...
Should evidence show that an axiom does not hold in a particular instance, that axiom its consequences are dropped and work continues with the axioms that do hold. For example, we had once believed that space obeyed the axioms of Euclidean geometry. Early this century, we found that we were wrong, and we had to replace the non-applicable axioms with others.
I think I'll stop now. This is off-topic.