Intelligent Design
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 17:04
VIEWED: 14833
PAGE 11 of 14
CHRISISALL:
The new addition "The answer to Evolution vs. Intelligent Design" seems a bit argumentative, and I think I'm being kind there. Gee whiz people, we're just talking here. I think I will avoid posting to that group. I may have to translate someone into wine or something. ROFL.
Atomkey.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Atomkey:
Perfessergee:
ID is not a science? There are many archeologist that would seriously disagree with you. But if you insist that a non-science should not be taught in school, then we should also rule out the following: ...
I thought Perf was clear, or at least strongly implied, that it should not be taught in science class. Not that it shouldn't be discussed at school at all.
Just sayin'
Edit: looks like I cross-posted HK on this issue.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SergeantX:
Yeah, I checked it out. It's a massive book. Did you actually read it ALL? A lot of it is those pyramid structures. I believe they are based on cellular automata. I once wrote a program in C that solved mazes using the same principle.
But doesn't Wolfram end up saying that there is noting random, and that it is all under an intelligent control of some kind? I may be wrong here, but that's what I 'thought' I heard about it from most of my friends... ???
Check out the last sentence of the second paragraph.
http://www.wolframscience.com/summary/
Atomkey.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
LOL... that's a big no on the 'all' question. I skipped around. He's pedantic as hell, well he's a teacher, but pretty impressed with himself to boot. I didn't catch the 'no randomness' message. Seemed to me he was pushing the idea of 'computational equivalance' which I distilled to the idea that, even if we assume deterministic rules of physics (at the non-quantum level) that the vast majority of processes in reality have no 'shorter description', even though they follow a small set of rules.
The metaphor that stuck in my head was that if you take the usual image evoked by determinism - that if you were somehow omniscienct of the state of the universe at any given time, then you could predict the future - the only way to actually make this prediction would be to work a computation that would be at least as complicated and take at least as much time as it would to just let the future happen. His POV was basically to look at the entirety of existence as one giant computation. Maybe that's what you intepreted as 'intelligent control'?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SergeantX:
You are right. My bad... Quote perf:
"that ID should be taught as science in science classes."
I have heard this argument many times. But I never heard it on media where it should be taught as a science. However. Again I say religion is NOT ID. And ID does have some scientific balance with other sciences = such as archeology. Much of what is written (Religion) has been supported by this science. Even the story of the Red Sea has been scientifically shown true. In fact, at certain times of the year, the eastward winds take on a similar effect known as the Bernoulli Force (I think it is Bernoulli). This is not seen from the surface of the sea due to particular underwater structures. Anyway, there is a path across the sea that at times is as shallow as 6 feet deep! If the wind were to gail, it would open up a hard-rock passage.
So giving up on ID being a science. Would perf allow ID to be taught as a theory? Afterall, evolution is a theory. And it is NOT scientifically proven. So is it really a science at all? And if ID cannot be taught as a theory, then how about HISTORY?
Atomkey.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BTW, I remember reading that 'computational equivalence' stuff and immediately thinking of the white mice in Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker trilogy...
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Atomkey:
So giving up on ID being a science. Would perf allow ID to be taught as a theory? Afterall, evolution is a theory. And it is NOT scientifically proven. So is it really a science at all? And if ID cannot be taught as a theory, then how about HISTORY?
I'm woefully lacking in knowledge about biology, but my son is heavily involved and tells me evolution, at least the mechanisms that predict the behaviour of evolution, are about as 'proven' as it gets. Referring to it as a theory, doesn't mean it isn't proven, although that's the popular conception. We still refer to the 'theory of gravity' but I don't think many of us would compare ID to gravity in terms of obvious truth.
Anyway, I say teach it. If it's as silly as it's detractors say, nothing will show this more than the harsh light of scientific examination. That said, I'm sympathetic to science teachers balking at this, as they don't want to waste class time on every unproven notion that some political faction hopes to foist on impressionable students. But the religious right is pushing this hard. To deny them is ducking a challenge. I say bring it into the classroom, compare it to evolution science and let kids decide. Of course I don't let my kids near public schools.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SergeantX:
Humph... I don't really know enough about Wolfram to say either way. His take on prediction led me to believe he was leaning towards a sort of pre-destination concept. I could have jumped to conclusions there I suppose.
And about the mice. I think Adams has a better view on ID -vs- Evolution than any of us will ever get around to composing. But I must say, I didn't like the way Zaphod B. was portrayed in the new movie. AND they never got around to Milly Ways!!! (sp?)
Who is the God person anyway?
Atomkey.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I got it.
Intelligent Design is Universal. Proof = Firefly was cancelled, and Universal has made a feature film. Fox = theory.
Case closed.
Atomkey.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, missed alot...
My fault for being in a different timezone I guess .
AtomKey:
Quote:
originally posted by AtomKey:
I half agree with you. And the quote from Einstien has always been with me. "God does not play dice with the universe."
I'm not sure if you understood the purpose of my quoting Einstien there, (if you did then I appologise). Basically Einstien rejected QM because of its 'random' nature, and spent much of the remainder of his career trying to disprove it.
Quote:
Albert Einstein disliked quantum mechanics, as developed by Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Dirac, and others, because it had many strange features that ran head-on into Einstein's finely honed intuition and understanding of how a proper universe ought to operate. Over the years he developed a list of objections to the various peculiarities of quantum mechanics.
Personally I think Einstien was wrong.
Quote:
originally posted by AtomKey:
When I imagine an atom, I see it like a micro-solar system. I believe the sub-atomic paricles are on a particular course, and that they are NOT in some random position. I believe this because things I observe on a maco level (over time) seem to perform the same way. If I could take a snapshot of the solar system, each planet (particle) would be in a specific position.
Unfortunatly macro physics, described by Special and General Relativity, and micro physics, described by QM are completly different and unmarryable. The difficulty with understanding QM is specifically that it is so totally different to anything we experience in day-to-day life. The point is macro physics works well for the very large based on experiment and observable data. Conversly micro physics works well for the physics of the very small, again supported by experiments and obsevable data, but because they are so different they don't work together. Physists are currently in search of a 'universal theory of everything' that will marry Quantum and Classical physics.
Quote:
originally posted by AtomKey:
But since I can observe the whole thing by model, I can project the past and future positions with good accuracy
You can't determine the state and position of a particle, therfore you can't work backwards to reliably guess its previous position/state, or future position/state, refrence the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Quote:
originally posted by AtomKey:
So if one atom, next to another, suddenly has a sub-atomic change in position, do they not de-stabilize? Is this not how nuclear reactions are instigated? I honestly may be completly wrong here. I don't know much about Nuclear Physics.
Your assuming too much. There is one massive difference between sup-atomics and planetary systems. In macro physics bodies tend to attract, in micro physics they tend to repel. It takes a great amount of energy to force atoms together (see nuclear Fusion).
Re. nuclear decay, in nature an atom is either stable or unstable. An atom is stable if the forces among the particles that makeup the nucleus are balanced. An atom is unstable or radioactive if these forces are (or become) unbalanced. This can be from an excess of Neutrons or Protons.
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Concerning the issue of randomness, have any of you read Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science"?
Nope, thanks I'll take a look.
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
His notion was that a process is random if it is completely without pattern...
...Another way to put it is that randomness exists when there is no 'shorter description' of an event than the event itself.
I'd agree with that, in data compression a signal can be said to be random if it has no data entropy. However, I don't think thats the only valid definition of 'random'.
Quote:
Originally posted by AtomKey:
And about the mice. I think Adams has a better view on ID -vs- Evolution than any of us will ever get around to composing. But I must say, I didn't like the way Zaphod B. was porNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME