Re: Limited Evolutionary Potential? - for Marc

On 4 Aug 2006 23:53:11 -0700, "Seanpit"
<seanpitnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


wf3h wrote:
Seanpit wrote:
Sure, this isn't 100%, but that is what science is all about.
If anything could be perfectly known, science would no longer be
needed.


says the guy who thinks that, because the big bang is not a perfect
theory, that it must be wrong.

I didn't say the big bang theory must be wrong. I said that it is
unexplainable. There's a big difference.

Sean, I am impressed by your restraint under attack. I did not catch
you firing back with inflammatory rhetoric once.

I have a difficult time with the idea that the universe could happen
accidentally. The complexity is over whelming. I am currently
reading Lee Smolin's "The Life of the Cosmos." It is clear he is not
happy with any standard theories that try to explain particles and
forces, as he develops his own theories. He relies heavily on
increasing the statistical possibilities by increasing the number of
universes that are created with chance settings of the forces and
particles settings.

I wonder if you focus on increased complexity to demonstrate the
exponential improbability of functional modifications as a way of
framing the debate? If there is ID, why would small modifications
also be "designed?"

I like to think of a design studio with lots of designers, perhaps
guided by senior staff (sometimes wondering if the seniors haven't
stepped out for awhile).

I am also taken by how long the evolution of matter from energy took
relative to the evolution of matter into life forms, roughly 10
billion years versus 3 billion. Was the transformation of matter so
much more difficult or was the "team" on a learning curve?

I am disappointed that ID has bogged down as a slug fest with the
"scientific" community and has bowed down to theocracy. If their is
design guiding the universe, then the exciting stuff is exploring the
nature of this force: is it moral, is it purposeful, what does it want
of its creatures?

Thanks for taking time to debate the fundamentals.

***

.