Science—religion at war—the battle for a stable world-view

[Mikal]

Hi Possum .... you have taken on a lot with this thread ..... lol



So since 1859 ... don't you think we have managed to balance facts and arguments. Evolution is now considered by nearly all reasoning people to be a fact ? or do you see his statement as something that he never meant to be resolved ?



But ... But ... without Darwin's theory we would never have known to start the search for the primal cause. DNA. You need to keep things in sequence, his theory pointed to DNA ?

cool bananas Possum ... greg

Okay, so two full fledged, dyed-in-the-wool professional scientists, one a professor of cognitive science and the other a bio-physicist and molecular biologist who believe fully in the spirit of Darwin’s approach to evolution write a book which they say is a work of criticism where their main contention is that ‘there is something wrong—quite possibly fatally wrong with the theory of natural selection.’

This is what struck me, this statement….

‘We don’t know very well how evolution works. Nor did Darwin and not as far as we can tell, does anybody else. Further research is required. It may well be that centuries of further research are required.’—What Darwin got Wrong—J. Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini

Now if it was just these two scientists I would view this as a normal critique of Darwin’s theory—but this kind of an affront is coming from all parts of science, those in theology, the clergy, those who study information systems, linguists and everyone else joining in the fray. No this is an avalanche challenging the theory. That alone makes me question, doubt and search for the truth.

Concerning your last statement I have not met that claim in any scientific critique yet and until I do I will not concern myself with it. Right now I’m concerned with pertinent information not even available to Darwin as he worked on a theory that ended up having a remarkable impact on the whole world.

Regards Mikal

[Mikal]

Um, science_religion_at war.




The Blob of Big Bang destruction?




Dang. Religion already lost the war.

Thank you Austin, I do stand corrected there and should have put some deeper thought into the title. Thats a small error and I hope as the thread goes on I will show just how many different professions and disciplines of thought are involved in this battle.
I hope you will also contribute to bringing forward some good info that can be examined.

Really as I told you the end of the age is the destructuring of all the systems that held up the age and yes that means religion as in the past is done..its finished!! It has to morph into another system for this new age...that much I understand.

Regards Mikal

[austintorn@aol.com]

‘We don’t know very well how evolution works. Nor did Darwin and not as far as we can tell, does anybody else. Further research is required. It may well be that centuries of further research are required.’—What Darwin got Wrong—J. Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini

Please see reviews on what they got wrong. I replied to this a year ago in Prof's thread.


Complexity cannot come first and so it cannot be fundamental, leaving only two choices for the ultimate forever basis, which are otherwise actually still the only two choices, these being an eternal balance of nonexistence or eternal stuff, neither of which basis admits of its own creation, again ruling out a fundamental Being. Each seems counter-intuitive, yet one must be correct. Stuff forever has problems concerning its limited and specific particulars of its amount, nature, and properties, yet nonexistence (nothing) doesn’t, since we note opposite pair production always, plus that we know there isn’t any thing to make stuff of, and also know of experiments of producing ‘sum-things’ as somethings from nothing.

There is also the religious notion problem of intelligence requiring Intelligence requiring INTELLIGENCE, as noted earlier, which may have caused some neglect of the post by strong believers for the same reasons of why this current post can be neglected or not dealt with by strong believers:

Supernaturalism is (almost certainly) an instinct, plus it can be greatly grooved upon, and you can't reason some people out of an instinct. Very few can inspect and reject their own thoughts. "Knowledge" you are born with feels more true than knowledge you acquire later through reasoning and learning. And when they think of God they will ‘see’ more God and/or mistake felt sensations for it. Bypassing the believer works, though, to save time.

(We observe the stance of strong belief to wrongly state itself as sure truth and fact.)

[Mikal]

A syntax error has prevented compilation; 'God': *** undefined symbol ***.

You are alive...your lifeforce defines the creator.


Regards Mikal

[austintorn@aol.com]

Really as I told you the end of the age is the destructuring of all the systems that held up the age and yes that means religion as in the past is done..its finished!! It has to morph into another system for this new age...that much I understand.

Humanism, for without religion, which always states 'God', there is little place for 'Godism'.

[labelwench]

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/science_religion

[Graybeard]

What makes you think this is just about religion??

Um, science_religion_at war.

rotflmao .... the irrepressible, incorrigible, inimitable Austin

greg

[labelwench]

Originally Posted by Graybeard
Hi Possum .... you have taken on a lot with this thread ..... lol

Let's see now.....Mikal in a debate with Austin and Greg on a thread of her own choosing.

I would say the odds are about even.

[Graybeard]

Complexity cannot come first and so it cannot be fundamental, leaving only two choices for the ultimate forever basis, which are otherwise actually still the only two choices, these being an eternal balance of nonexistence or eternal stuff, neither of which basis admits of its own creation, again ruling out a fundamental Being.

Each seems counter-intuitive, yet one must be correct. Stuff forever has problems concerning its limited and specific particulars of its amount, nature, and properties, yet nonexistence (nothing) doesn’t, since we note opposite pair production always, plus that we know there isn’t any thing to make stuff of, and also know of experiments of producing ‘sum-things’ as somethings from nothing.

Dear Possum ....

1 .. Austin says that complexity cannot come first. This is fairly straightforward ... in other words how could something complex that is made of less complex things come about in order to create the less complex things from which it is made ?

This is a good point ... it is a telling point if you are chasing a stable world view. It is supported by both logic, reason and experiment.

He also points out that there are only two choices from which this complex-stuff could have arisen.

2 .. A balanced nothing or an eternal something. He then cites pair production (positive-negative) as very good circumstantial evidence for a balanced nothing. Inflation theory is currently the most favoured contender for the TOE and it supports a balanced nothing


These two points directly address your thread title and opening thread ... and supply strong evidence for the Scientific viewpoint being the correct and stable viewpoint.

Your thread opener and title have potential to be contentious. I will mod this thread closely to prevent where possible. In order that we may reduce conflict I feel you should directly address these two points rather than pass on and ignore ?

I will do my best to see that all posters are treated fairly and with respect.

So far Austin is being Angelic .... this worries me .... lol

Graybeard (mod)

[Mikal]

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/science_religion

Thank you for the link and write-up LW but I am not in league with Francis Collins nor his way of thinking. Neither do I sit on the fence—this is a world issue that affects all that he has mentioned in his article.
I have spent years living on the edge of controversy and I have no fear of meeting large issues head on.

Honestly I see this issue as being very vulnerable to semantic manipulation so being genuinely honest about it is the best route I can find to tackle it.
Don’t be swayed by the title—the big challenge is about understanding what evolution really is as opposed to approaching evolution and if there is something fatally flawed about Natural Selection then it should be researched until it is figured out to the satisfaction of scientists who have met the challenge.

Basically I understand a lot of Collins statements especially concerning the word ‘seems’ and this can’t be any stranger than the fact that I am quite harmonious with those who feel their need for religion in their lives and I am studying science. I guess what I am telling you, is that this battle is not in my life or of my life—it is of my research and my interest in world history.
I am interested in the scale of study that is coming out of this theory. This is a research forum and topics are brought here to discuss and debate. If I am wrong there, I would leave tomorrow and look for a site that allows big discussions.

Right at this moment this is one of the biggest world issues we have and Collins is one small voice. As far as I know nothing gets solved through a passive attitude, one has to meet something head on to solve it.
Please don't think I am being offending here LW...I usually just say it like it is and thats me.


Regards Mikal