From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sat Oct 16 2004 - 04:40:44 BST
On 15 Oct 2004 at 19:31, Scott Roberts wrote:
> msh says:
> But isn't the fossil record loaded with examples of biological
false
> starts, goofy non-viable mutations, and dead ends? (I bet Jim can
> provide plenty of examples.) If this is so, then wouldn't this be
> evidence (retrodictive tests, to use Jim's phrase) supporting the
> idea of random mutation rather than design, which (design) is what
> I'm assuming you mean by "some other way."
[Scott:] It's not the only "other way", but that is beside the point.
The point is...
msh:
If an event isn't random then it must be planned, implying a planner,
no? What other "other way" is there? I mention this only to address
your last question about scientific "dogma." Jim has provided a more
complete look at GR, which you've probably read by now, so I'll wait
for your response to him on that issue.
>msh, earlier:
> Besides, what sort of test would one conduct to show that life and
> consciousness can arise randomly? I suppose we could cook up a
> primordial soup and bombard it with random flashes of lightning for
> a million years, then wait around for a few billion years for self-
> aware life to start tapping on the glass. But even if such an
> experiment were possible, there would be no scientific defense
> against the claim that we had in no way excluded the possibility of
> divine intervention. It's a no win situation for science because,
> ultimately, the question is not a scientific one.
[Scott:] That's my point. There is no scientific way to tell. So why
call evolution "solely by chance and natural selection" scientific?
Why isn't it called dogma?
msh says:
Because the concept of randomness is mathematically and
scientifically sound, and nature is chock full of observable random
events, from galactic collisions to comet and lightning strikes to
the toss of dice to the dance of quarks. So, unless we're shackled
with a strict determinism (in which case any study of scientific
cause and effect becomes meaningless), randomness is scientifically
viable, and the idea of a non-human planner is not. I think.
Best,
msh
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 16 2004 - 04:41:47 BST