A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A Meaningful World: Intelligent Design As A Response To Secular Nihilism



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old November 17th 06, 05:14 PM posted to alt.atheism,rec.arts.books,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.space.policy
Christopher P. Winter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default A Meaningful World: Intelligent Design As A Response To Secular Nihilism

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 05:07:42 GMT, Lewis Mammel
wrote:



WaltBJ wrote:

One big flaw in "Intelligent Design" is that the human body is itself
by no means an intelligent design. A birth canal that passes through a
bony ring is just plain bad engineering. And there are many more
serious flaws in the design of the human body. Somehow all the
ID/Creationists sedulously ignore these design flaws, when a few
minutes serious thought will allow you to identify at least a dozen of
them. ID? Yeah, right!


I remember a comedian years ago doing a bit on improvements
he'd like to see in the human body. The only two I remember a

Your ears should be under your arms so you could keep them warm.

Your mouth should be on top of your head so you could put
a sandwich under your hat and eat it on the way to work.


And your elbows should bend both ways so you could scratch your own back.

Yeah, that's it, that's the ticket!
  #32  
Old November 17th 06, 07:13 PM posted to alt.atheism,rec.arts.books,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.space.policy
Anarcissie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default A Meaningful World: Intelligent Design As A Response To Secular Nihilism


Chas Brown wrote:
David E wrote:
Interesting, this thread supports a hypothesis that I've proposed many
times befo that science fiction readers tend far more to a
naturalistic worldview than others. I have little doubt that my
childhood (and continuing) love of SF was one of the factors that
helped ease me out of the indoctrination into fundamentalist
christianity in which I was raised.

As to the main claim of the origin quote:

that naturalism is an essentially nihilistic worldview

is there anyone here who agrees or would care to present an argument
for this claim (I notice that the quote simply takes it as a give
rather than presenting a case for the claim's truth).


I don't in the slightest degree agree with the assertion, but I
understand the basic logic of it.

Suppose we take it as granted that ethical behavior is exactly that
behavior which is in consonance with (by definition) the most perfectly
ethical being possible - God. It follows that the denial of the
existence of such a being is equivalent to stating "there is no
foundation for ethical behavior". I.e., it asserts that ethics is
essentially nihilistic.


No, you could have some _thing_ in perhaps a higher realm,
like the Platonic forms, which was nevertheless not godlike
in the sense of not being conscious or powerful. This thing
could be capable of telling you what was objectively and
absolutely ethical. You don't exactly need god, just a sort
of enduring ghost that hangs around.

The concept that an individual chooses what they believe is ethical or
not "by their own lights" is regarded as the evil of "moral
relativism". What stops a person from claiming that killing and eating
his/her neighbor's children is "morally correct"?

This argument of course ignores the basic aesthetic logic given in the
book review. We can choose what is ethical because "it is beautiful to
do so"; regardless of the fact that certain aspects of what we consider
"beautiful" doubtless have roots in our evolutionary history.


Or in the intervention of the gods. Or something.

  #33  
Old November 18th 06, 06:38 AM posted to alt.atheism,rec.arts.books,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.space.policy
jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 611
Default A Meaningful World: Intelligent Design As A Response To Secular Nihilism


"*Anarcissie*" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
On 16 Nov 2006 10:53:31 -0800, "David E" wrote:

Interesting, this thread supports a hypothesis that I've proposed many
times befo that science fiction readers tend far more to a
naturalistic worldview than others. I have little doubt that my
childhood (and continuing) love of SF was one of the factors that
helped ease me out of the indoctrination into fundamentalist
christianity in which I was raised.

As to the main claim of the origin quote:

that naturalism is an essentially nihilistic worldview

is there anyone here who agrees or would care to present an argument
for this claim (I notice that the quote simply takes it as a give
rather than presenting a case for the claim's truth).


Most of us here are neither philosophical naturalists nor nihilists.
Any naturalism is incidental, consequential and minor.

Naturalism is the philosophical belief that everything is natural.

Nihilism is the philosophical belief in nothing.

A nihilist could not hold the beliefs required of a naturalist.


The most common meaning of nihilism is a lack of belief
in absolute or objective values. See:



Both camps see a world that is constantly changing.
But nihilism makes the same assumption that underlies
classical objective science. Only that which remains
unchanged, repeatable or predictable has ...value, meaning
or supplies truth.

This apparent contradiction leaves them with nothing but emptiness.
But the logical contradiction is easy to see.
The only truth is that everything constantly changes.

So truth and meaning constantly change or evolve.
Which means they are subjective and dependent
on how the universe changes or evolves. It is
only our inability to understand the natural processes
of change that leaves us empty and confused.

And this is the fault of objective reductionist, or modern, science
which exalts fixed physical laws within a frame of reference
of upward causation.

The proper frame of reference for understanding the processes
of change is through subjective methods within a framework
of holistic, or systems, perspective.

The basic error in our attempt to understand reality, which chaos theory
is reversing, is simple and profound. This is not a minor thing
to say but it is absolutely true and completely changes
everything.

Modern science has been attempting to find truth and meaning
by starting with the smallest simplest objects of the physical
universe. In the hope that will lead to an understanding of
the most complex, such as life, intelligence and meaning.

They start with the simplest the universe has to offer in order
to understand the complex.

That is perfectly backwards!!!
The way to understand reality and nature is to do exactly the
opposite.

We should be starting with the most complex the universe has to offer
in order to understand its simplicity.

Or....instead of beginning with the physical universe as a source
of fundamental law, we should derive fundamental laws of the
physical universe from LIFE....the most complex.

That's correct.....Darwin explains how the physical universe works.

NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

The abstract properties of Darwinian evolution tell us all about
how life evolves, and how physical universe evolves.

Modern science has been seeking out certainty and simplicity
all this time in order to make sense of it all.
But we should be seeking out uncertainty and complexity
instead.

Then, and only then, the true simplicity of nature and the universe
becomes clear. As does meaning and truth.

Good is that which best mimics naturally evolving processes.
Evil is that which is farthest from Nature. Morality is now
a function of fitness, of context. And with clear scientific
rules based on the Darwinian notions we all know and love.

Simplicity in the parts leads to chaos, or complexity, in the whole.
Complexity, or chaos, in the parts leads to simplicity in the whole.

Random interactions, within an infinite loop, leads to increasing order
evolution, life and intelligence.

Our science is backwards, we live in the Dark Ages.


Jonathan


s











http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm
http://www.counterorder.com/nihilism.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11074a.htm


  #34  
Old November 18th 06, 01:40 PM posted to alt.atheism,rec.arts.books,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.space.policy
*Anarcissie*
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default A Meaningful World: Intelligent Design As A Response To Secular Nihilism


jonathan wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
On 16 Nov 2006 10:53:31 -0800, "David E" wrote:

Interesting, this thread supports a hypothesis that I've proposed many
times befo that science fiction readers tend far more to a
naturalistic worldview than others. I have little doubt that my
childhood (and continuing) love of SF was one of the factors that
helped ease me out of the indoctrination into fundamentalist
christianity in which I was raised.

As to the main claim of the origin quote:

that naturalism is an essentially nihilistic worldview

is there anyone here who agrees or would care to present an argument
for this claim (I notice that the quote simply takes it as a give
rather than presenting a case for the claim's truth).

Most of us here are neither philosophical naturalists nor nihilists.
Any naturalism is incidental, consequential and minor.

Naturalism is the philosophical belief that everything is natural.

Nihilism is the philosophical belief in nothing.

A nihilist could not hold the beliefs required of a naturalist.


The most common meaning of nihilism is a lack of belief
in absolute or objective values. See:



Both camps see a world that is constantly changing.
But nihilism makes the same assumption that underlies
classical objective science. Only that which remains
unchanged, repeatable or predictable has ...value, meaning
or supplies truth.

This apparent contradiction leaves them with nothing but emptiness.
But the logical contradiction is easy to see.
The only truth is that everything constantly changes.

So truth and meaning constantly change or evolve.
Which means they are subjective and dependent
on how the universe changes or evolves. It is
only our inability to understand the natural processes
of change that leaves us empty and confused.


2 + 2 = 4 doesn't appear to change much.

And this is the fault of objective reductionist, or modern, science
which exalts fixed physical laws within a frame of reference
of upward causation.


Not long ago I was reading in the _Scientific_American_
about possible universes in which 2 + 2 = 4 is false. Part
of what I believe some have called the Quantum Froth
hypothesis. Science became attractively weird in the
20th century, at least out at the edges.

The proper frame of reference for understanding the processes
of change is through subjective methods within a framework
of holistic, or systems, perspective.


Objectively proper?

The basic error in our attempt to understand reality, which chaos theory
is reversing, is simple and profound. This is not a minor thing
to say but it is absolutely true and completely changes
everything.

Modern science has been attempting to find truth and meaning
by starting with the smallest simplest objects of the physical
universe. In the hope that will lead to an understanding of
the most complex, such as life, intelligence and meaning.


That is incorrect. Small objects and their interactions were
originally hypothesized as part of the explanation or analysis
of larger objects and their interactions. But so have very
large, comprehensive "objects" like gravity or Einstein's
conception of spacetime.

They start with the simplest the universe has to offer in order
to understand the complex.

That is perfectly backwards!!!
The way to understand reality and nature is to do exactly the
opposite.

We should be starting with the most complex the universe has to offer
in order to understand its simplicity.

Or....instead of beginning with the physical universe as a source
of fundamental law, we should derive fundamental laws of the
physical universe from LIFE....the most complex.

That's correct.....Darwin explains how the physical universe works.

NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

The abstract properties of Darwinian evolution tell us all about
how life evolves, and how physical universe evolves.

Modern science has been seeking out certainty and simplicity
all this time in order to make sense of it all.
But we should be seeking out uncertainty and complexity
instead.

Then, and only then, the true simplicity of nature and the universe
becomes clear. As does meaning and truth.

Good is that which best mimics naturally evolving processes.
Evil is that which is farthest from Nature. Morality is now
a function of fitness, of context. And with clear scientific
rules based on the Darwinian notions we all know and love.

Simplicity in the parts leads to chaos, or complexity, in the whole.
Complexity, or chaos, in the parts leads to simplicity in the whole.

Random interactions, within an infinite loop, leads to increasing order
evolution, life and intelligence.

Our science is backwards, we live in the Dark Ages.


Jonathan


s











http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm
http://www.counterorder.com/nihilism.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11074a.htm


  #35  
Old November 18th 06, 02:05 PM posted to alt.atheism,rec.arts.books,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.space.policy
Jack Tingle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default A Meaningful World: Intelligent Design As A Response To Secular Nihilism

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:38:02 -0500, "jonathan"
wrote:

Modern science has been attempting to find truth and meaning
by starting with the smallest simplest objects of the physical
universe. In the hope that will lead to an understanding of
the most complex, such as life, intelligence and meaning.


Nope. Science makes no claim about meaning. And it doesn't prespecify
scales. You can apply science at any scale. One of the best examples
of good science is Bernd Heinrich's "Ravens in Winter". It's a purely
naturalistic study of the behavior of big black birds in New England
winters. It sticks to the facts of the experiments and draws
conclusions about its (admittedly fascinating) subjects. No
reductionism is required. And while the book itself and the
experimenter's comments are meaningful, the ravens have no cosmic
meaning.

Regards,
Jack Tingle
  #36  
Old November 18th 06, 05:45 PM posted to alt.atheism,rec.arts.books,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.space.policy
jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 611
Default A Meaningful World: Intelligent Design As A Response To Secular Nihilism


jonathan wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" wrote in mes



So truth and meaning constantly change or evolve.
Which means they are subjective and dependent
on how the universe changes or evolves. It is
only our inability to understand the natural processes
of change that leaves us empty and confused.


2 + 2 = 4 doesn't appear to change much.



We were talking about reality. One idea plus one action
can change the world. And the resulting effect never
repeats itself exactly.



And this is the fault of objective reductionist, or modern, science
which exalts fixed physical laws within a frame of reference
of upward causation.


Not long ago I was reading in the _Scientific_American_
about possible universes in which 2 + 2 = 4 is false. Part
of what I believe some have called the Quantum Froth
hypothesis. Science became attractively weird in the
20th century, at least out at the edges.



In all of reality there never has been, or ever will be, anything
that will ever exactly repeat. Not even once in the entire
history or future of the universe will anything repeat itself.
We are talking about reality, not platonic constructions
or blackboard mathematics. Which according to Einstein....

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. "




The proper frame of reference for understanding the processes
of change is through subjective methods within a framework
of holistic, or systems, perspective.


Objectively proper?

The basic error in our attempt to understand reality, which chaos theory
is reversing, is simple and profound. This is not a minor thing
to say but it is absolutely true and completely changes
everything.

Modern science has been attempting to find truth and meaning
by starting with the smallest simplest objects of the physical
universe. In the hope that will lead to an understanding of
the most complex, such as life, intelligence and meaning.


That is incorrect. Small objects and their interactions were
originally hypothesized as part of the explanation or analysis
of larger objects and their interactions. But so have very
large, comprehensive "objects" like gravity or Einstein's
conception of spacetime.



But all those examples are still efforts to derive fundamental
laws from the building blocks of the physical universe.
They should be derived from the exact opposite.

Our fundamental laws should be derived from the
....system properties...of life.
Not the part properties of the non living universe.

It's not possible to extrapolate directly from the smallest
part to the whole. Each step accumulates error.
You can't understand an idea begginning with
particle physics.

Order or life has one particular system property that
defies deterministic methods. Orderly systems
are characterized by chaotic behavior in the
components. Chaotic means unpredictable or
non repeatable. So how can our standard mathematics
which relies on repeatable relationships ever hope
to unravel such a system when starting with the
chaotic parts???

It can't, so it keeps reducing to smaller and smaller parts
in the vain hope of finding some ultimate relationship
or law. But that is futile, given the nature of reality.

Modern science scours one extreme or the other in
search of these laws. From quarks to quasars, looking
for ultimate simplicity and comes up empty.

The truth is that complexity or life derives from a system
which is as far from either extreme as possible.
Reality, life and intelligence all flow from the random
interaction of opposite extremes.

Matter and energy give rise to light
Gravity and cosmic expansion give rise to a universe.
Genetics and mutation give rise to evolution
Instincts and imagination give rise to intelligence.
Laws and freedom give rise to democracy

And so on, increasing order requires the complex
interaction between simple components.
Examining simple components will not unravel
the source of complexity. So we must reverse
our frame of reference.

We assume there is no precision in reality.
We assume subjective methods are the ideal.
We begin with the whole, in order to understand
the parts.

Instead of reducing to the smallesst parts, we expand
to the most complex system as a starting point.

So, instead of searching the universe, from quarks
to quasars, for meaning....we look into
a mirror instead.

We have to understand ourselves before we can
understand reality.

NOT the other way around.


s






They start with the simplest the universe has to offer in order
to understand the complex.

That is perfectly backwards!!!
The way to understand reality and nature is to do exactly the
opposite.

We should be starting with the most complex the universe has to offer
in order to understand its simplicity.

Or....instead of beginning with the physical universe as a source
of fundamental law, we should derive fundamental laws of the
physical universe from LIFE....the most complex.

That's correct.....Darwin explains how the physical universe works.

NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

The abstract properties of Darwinian evolution tell us all about
how life evolves, and how physical universe evolves.

Modern science has been seeking out certainty and simplicity
all this time in order to make sense of it all.
But we should be seeking out uncertainty and complexity
instead.

Then, and only then, the true simplicity of nature and the universe
becomes clear. As does meaning and truth.

Good is that which best mimics naturally evolving processes.
Evil is that which is farthest from Nature. Morality is now
a function of fitness, of context. And with clear scientific
rules based on the Darwinian notions we all know and love.

Simplicity in the parts leads to chaos, or complexity, in the whole.
Complexity, or chaos, in the parts leads to simplicity in the whole.

Random interactions, within an infinite loop, leads to increasing order
evolution, life and intelligence.

Our science is backwards, we live in the Dark Ages.


Jonathan


s











http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm
http://www.counterorder.com/nihilism.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11074a.htm



  #37  
Old November 18th 06, 06:18 PM posted to alt.atheism,rec.arts.books,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.space.policy
jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 611
Default A Meaningful World: Intelligent Design As A Response To Secular Nihilism


"Jack Tingle" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:38:02 -0500, "jonathan"
wrote:

Modern science has been attempting to find truth and meaning
by starting with the smallest simplest objects of the physical
universe. In the hope that will lead to an understanding of
the most complex, such as life, intelligence and meaning.


Nope. Science makes no claim about meaning. And it doesn't prespecify
scales.
You can apply science at any scale. One of the best examples
of good science is Bernd Heinrich's "Ravens in Winter". It's a purely
naturalistic study of the behavior of big black birds in New England
winters. It sticks to the facts of the experiments and draws
conclusions about its (admittedly fascinating) subjects. No
reductionism is required. And while the book itself and the
experimenter's comments are meaningful, the ravens have no cosmic
meaning.


Of course they're using reductionism. If they look at the detailed
behavior of each bird in order to understand the properties
of the whole, the species or flock.

And of course the most fascinating aspects of living systems
are the emergent properties. Behavior that seems to
come from nowhere, unspoken rules, and collective
behavior. The complexity that emerges from the interaction
of relatively simple components.

And they do have cosmic meaning.
If they can teach us about behavior that is universal

Boids
http://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/index.html

That nature creates or problem solves by the countless
iterations of random interactions. It doesn't matter
if you're talking about a society or a solar system.
Eventually, inevitably, the ideal solution will be found.

Whether it's a planet just perfectly placed in the water zone.
Or the perfect adapation.

The ..abstract...processes responsible for each are the same.
Which gives them meaning.

How the universe or life go from simple components
to complex systems, how systems self organize
are universal to both. And since they are far easier
to descern in living systems, we should start there.
With the most complex the universe has to offer.

The fundamental laws of the physical universe
should be derived from life, not the other way
around.

Self organizing system FAQ
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm

Dynamics of complex systems, online text
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/index.html











Regards,
Jack Tingle


  #38  
Old November 18th 06, 09:17 PM posted to alt.atheism,rec.arts.books,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.space.policy
*Anarcissie*
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default A Meaningful World: Intelligent Design As A Response To Secular Nihilism


jonathan wrote:
jonathan wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" wrote in mes



So truth and meaning constantly change or evolve.
Which means they are subjective and dependent
on how the universe changes or evolves. It is
only our inability to understand the natural processes
of change that leaves us empty and confused.


2 + 2 = 4 doesn't appear to change much.



We were talking about reality. One idea plus one action
can change the world. And the resulting effect never
repeats itself exactly.


You might be amused by many-worlds theory. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_(science)
which has a good rundown of the outstanding ideas
(I guess; I'm not exactly a physics connoisseur).
If many-worlds is true (and what is truth?) then not
only does every effect repeat itself exactly, it does
so infinitely many times. And then some.


And this is the fault of objective reductionist, or modern, science
which exalts fixed physical laws within a frame of reference
of upward causation.


Not long ago I was reading in the _Scientific_American_
about possible universes in which 2 + 2 = 4 is false. Part
of what I believe some have called the Quantum Froth
hypothesis. Science became attractively weird in the
20th century, at least out at the edges.


In all of reality there never has been, or ever will be, anything
that will ever exactly repeat. Not even once in the entire
history or future of the universe will anything repeat itself.
We are talking about reality, not platonic constructions
or blackboard mathematics. Which according to Einstein....

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. "


His buddy Gödel, however, disagreed. In their
declining years they walked around stuffy little
Princeton town, debating their incompataible
religious theories. But when it comes to religion,
every man can read the scriptures, so we can
both tell them where to get off, if we like.



The proper frame of reference for understanding the processes
of change is through subjective methods within a framework
of holistic, or systems, perspective.


Objectively proper?

The basic error in our attempt to understand reality, which chaos theory
is reversing, is simple and profound. This is not a minor thing
to say but it is absolutely true and completely changes
everything.

Modern science has been attempting to find truth and meaning
by starting with the smallest simplest objects of the physical
universe. In the hope that will lead to an understanding of
the most complex, such as life, intelligence and meaning.


That is incorrect. Small objects and their interactions were
originally hypothesized as part of the explanation or analysis
of larger objects and their interactions. But so have very
large, comprehensive "objects" like gravity or Einstein's
conception of spacetime.



But all those examples are still efforts to derive fundamental
laws from the building blocks of the physical universe.
They should be derived from the exact opposite.

Our fundamental laws should be derived from the
...system properties...of life.
Not the part properties of the non living universe.

It's not possible to extrapolate directly from the smallest
part to the whole. Each step accumulates error.
You can't understand an idea begginning with
particle physics.

Order or life has one particular system property that
defies deterministic methods. Orderly systems
are characterized by chaotic behavior in the
components. Chaotic means unpredictable or
non repeatable. So how can our standard mathematics
which relies on repeatable relationships ever hope
to unravel such a system when starting with the
chaotic parts???

It can't, so it keeps reducing to smaller and smaller parts
in the vain hope of finding some ultimate relationship
or law. But that is futile, given the nature of reality.

Modern science scours one extreme or the other in
search of these laws. From quarks to quasars, looking
for ultimate simplicity and comes up empty.

The truth is that complexity or life derives from a system
which is as far from either extreme as possible.
Reality, life and intelligence all flow from the random
interaction of opposite extremes.

Matter and energy give rise to light
Gravity and cosmic expansion give rise to a universe.
Genetics and mutation give rise to evolution
Instincts and imagination give rise to intelligence.
Laws and freedom give rise to democracy

And so on, increasing order requires the complex
interaction between simple components.
Examining simple components will not unravel
the source of complexity. So we must reverse
our frame of reference.

We assume there is no precision in reality.
We assume subjective methods are the ideal.
We begin with the whole, in order to understand
the parts.

Instead of reducing to the smallesst parts, we expand
to the most complex system as a starting point.

So, instead of searching the universe, from quarks
to quasars, for meaning....we look into
a mirror instead.

We have to understand ourselves before we can
understand reality.

NOT the other way around.


s






They start with the simplest the universe has to offer in order
to understand the complex.

That is perfectly backwards!!!
The way to understand reality and nature is to do exactly the
opposite.

We should be starting with the most complex the universe has to offer
in order to understand its simplicity.

Or....instead of beginning with the physical universe as a source
of fundamental law, we should derive fundamental laws of the
physical universe from LIFE....the most complex.

That's correct.....Darwin explains how the physical universe works.

NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

The abstract properties of Darwinian evolution tell us all about
how life evolves, and how physical universe evolves.

Modern science has been seeking out certainty and simplicity
all this time in order to make sense of it all.
But we should be seeking out uncertainty and complexity
instead.

Then, and only then, the true simplicity of nature and the universe
becomes clear. As does meaning and truth.

Good is that which best mimics naturally evolving processes.
Evil is that which is farthest from Nature. Morality is now
a function of fitness, of context. And with clear scientific
rules based on the Darwinian notions we all know and love.

Simplicity in the parts leads to chaos, or complexity, in the whole.
Complexity, or chaos, in the parts leads to simplicity in the whole.

Random interactions, within an infinite loop, leads to increasing order
evolution, life and intelligence.

Our science is backwards, we live in the Dark Ages.


Jonathan


s











http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm
http://www.counterorder.com/nihilism.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11074a.htm



  #39  
Old November 18th 06, 09:50 PM posted to alt.atheism,rec.arts.books,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.space.policy
Wayne Throop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,062
Default A Meaningful World: Intelligent Design As A Response To Secular Nihilism

: "jonathan"
: Modern science has been attempting to find truth and meaning
: by starting with the smallest simplest objects of the physical
: universe. In the hope that will lead to an understanding of
: the most complex, such as life, intelligence and meaning.

That turns out not to be the case. Science started with things like
"animals" and "air" and "rocks" and "weather" and so on and on, and
sought explanations for these things. Seeking simplity or certainty has
almost nothing to do with it (though prefering simple explantions over
needlessly complex ones is a common heuristic often employed). Science
has been attempting *accurate*, *useful* *models* of the things
all around us.

: The abstract properties of Darwinian evolution

are a good case in point; Darwin didn't start with genetics and chemistry
and all those "small, simple" things, he started with the animals.

: Modern science has been seeking out certainty and simplicity all this
: time in order to make sense of it all. But we should be seeking out
: uncertainty and complexity instead.

Shrug. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
  #40  
Old November 18th 06, 10:23 PM posted to alt.atheism,rec.arts.books,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.space.policy
*Anarcissie*
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default A Meaningful World: Intelligent Design As A Response To Secular Nihilism

Wayne Throop wrote:
: "jonathan"
: Modern science has been seeking out certainty and simplicity all this
: time in order to make sense of it all. But we should be seeking out
: uncertainty and complexity instead.

Shrug. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.


There is already a considerable supply of uncertainty and
complexity at hand; we need not seek very far.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intelligent Design vs Evolution kenseto Astronomy Misc 213 March 6th 06 07:38 PM
Intelligent Design? glbrad01 Policy 3 November 28th 05 01:58 AM
'Intelligent Design' becoming LAW! [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 2 September 29th 05 01:42 PM
'Intelligent Design' becoming LAW! Odysseus Astronomy Misc 6 September 28th 05 10:57 PM
'Intelligent Design' becoming LAW! Odysseus Amateur Astronomy 4 September 28th 05 09:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.