Re: Advanced ID Theory Smeared With Religion
- From: Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 09:38:22 +0100
In message <ac91e1f5-0f60-454b-be27-1c64fb225087@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Primary AL <aavery6801@xxxxxxxxx> writes
Due to Vends destruction of my thread I decided to re post for
consideration.
Why, due to our inability to articulate the complexity of the universe
as it facilitates life (from non mass-non form into mass, form, and
then life), do we see legal forces in public education proclaiming
that intelligent design has no place for consideration in the science
classroom?
We have already explained to you why intelligent design has no place for consideration in the science classroom. I understand that you have even agreed with us.
It turns out that you don't mean intelligent design, but some poorly specified ideas of your own. I suspect that it would turn out that the same reasons apply, but additionally
* the fact that your ideas are poorly specified is a reason for an exclusion - if you can't present them clearly we can't teach them.
* ideas should command support among the scientific community before they are candidates for inclusion in the science classroom.
The probability of two hundred different amino acids aligning with
each other, from pure unintentional random shuffling for completion of
cellular manifestation is something like a trillion, trillion,
trillion, trillion to one.
Void of any instruction facilitating the assignment of tasks to the
amino acids receptive components necessary for alignment, let alone
programming for symbiotic relations between them once aligned, makes
the probability of actual completion of any cell, from random
activity, zero.
Presenting a strawman of abiogenesis is not support for inclusion of your ideas in the science classroom.
Yet the term random-ness is embedded throughout evolution theory text.
It keeps a short rhetorical link for nationalist atheist agendas and
secular humanist foundations. They proclaim pure purposeless activity
as the basis for any initial generation of life form.
Ad-hominem arguments are not support for inclusion of your ideas in the science classroom.
Thus, the pervasive term random-ness." Today it is too easy to throw
out the concept of pure random activity facilitating any functional
phenomenon. Random has to be cloaked in such a way as to obfuscate
ideological intentions associated with its ongoing use.
Sadly, the term inadvertently causes the honest scientist involved in
objective evolutionary science to partake at times, by proxy in a
movement garnered by a forceful vocal few, like Hitchen’s and Dawkins,
who hang their hats on such nihilistic terms.. With one word, toggled
back and forth from random to randomness in a sentence, science can be
made to appear supportive of the concept of life having "No-Purpose or
Meaning” unwillingly strengthening a movement they had no intentions
of supporting.
Isn't the real issue here, currently more honestly, the fact that,
as one observes such massive organizational power emanating out of
non-
mass, non-form, of such intricate complexity, arguably irreducible*
that science in any of its areas of study has yet to find a way to
discern any universal bias pattern, or cyclical facilitating the
evolutionary process?
A far more scientific answer than “purposeless random activity,” would
be “We don’t know. More research needs to be done.”
The argument that proven studies of nature show natural random
activity occurring with regularity is by no means sufficient grounds
for an absolute summation of any primary nature of the universe, as
having "Absolutely No Intentions."
If there are any empirical observations to be made, look around and
observe. Intelligence, might be defined as “vast autonomous self
instructional matrices of
information that is infused into every atom, nucleus, and cell,
possibly
guiding the electromagnetic, light, energy, and gravitational
properties which allow mass to exist. It certainly has nothing to do
with
religious problems. It has nothing to do with atheism. It seems
timeless,
formless, all-inclusive, pervasive, creative, and endlessly adaptive.
*All constituents of a form in order to exist must themselves have
constituents.
What are the constituents of a quark?
Exactly my point. We will spend billions in tunnels dug under cities
surrounding needy citizens, trying to find a Higgs Boson. We are
uncertain that it even exists. If they ever do find it they will then
be saddled, with:
"What are constituents within the Higgs Boson that cause it to behave
that way?"
It is no more unreasonable than the concept of the potential mass and
information of the universe residing in a subatomic dot ,than it is to
propose a theory of unresolvable physical measurement as it pertains
to subatomic entities. Although the "constituents my cease to have
measurement ascribed to them as they cease to qualify as discernable
mass, it is a reasonable assumption that even the properties of
energy, light and gravity contain discoverable categories definable as
"informational/instructional" or data related constituents.
You haven't explained how a counter-example (explained in another reply) to one of your assertions can be exactly your point, and yet here you repeat that claim.
contrary to> your assertion that "All constituents of a form in order to exist must
> themselves have constituents" quarks to the best of our observations and
> theories do not have components. (The 'ace' model never gained any
> traction.)
> A neutrino is another particle which to the best of our observations and
> theories does not have components.
> The list of particles you give does not form the hierarchy you imply.
"To the best of our ability" is a phrase describing
our current inability to observe non or dark mass information, if
not the nature of information exchanges between energy and gravity.
Because we are not yet prepared, as we were not prepared a thousand
times in the past, to discern the nature of some entities
properties, this decrying of inadequacy, elicits no scientific
authority.
The static argument involving the current inability to discern an
aspect of a certain theories proposed properties replete with
erroneously associating the theory with blatantly non-scientific
religious material is not a scientific argument for the entire
theories
summary dismissal.
Occam's razor is used inobtaining viable answers for complex
questions, at least for the purpose of getting off square one.
The statement often heard that intelligent design is not science
because
it cannot be proven with basic empirical observation is such a blind
argument as to be laughable.
We sit in the midst of intelligent
information, we work with it, we build machines to better understand
it, we are by nature intelligent ourselves as is most life including a
virus with one little gene infused with information so complex as
enable it to multiply, leech off or other life forms, etc.
-Yet we say there is no demonstrable empirical evidence sufficient
for consideration of efforts to develop a theory that the universe is
intrinsically intelligent. This is such a no brain-er. Testability is
done simply by honoring the fact that the mountain of evidence in
front of our noses is real. Not in terms of factual establishment, of
a deity through testability; but as to its viability for consideration
as Universal Intrinsic Intelligence due to
the obvious omnipresent quantity of easily observable engineering
feats suggesting its existence.
Proofs consists not of discovery, but of of admission of what is
already observable at every level of reality.
--
alias Ernest Major
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Advanced ID Theory Smeared With Religion
- From: Primary Al
- Re: Advanced ID Theory Smeared With Religion
- References:
- Advanced ID Theory Smeared With Religion
- From: Primary AL
- Advanced ID Theory Smeared With Religion
- Prev by Date: Re: Further proof of Design.
- Next by Date: Re: Paley's Fallacy
- Previous by thread: Re: Advanced ID Theory Smeared With Religion
- Next by thread: Re: Advanced ID Theory Smeared With Religion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
