From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Dec 04 2005 - 14:00:04 GMT
> Platt, Matt and others ...
>
> Platt said
> "But in our universe there's not an infinity of time for life to have
> been created by laws of probability .... Rocks cannot defy gravity.
> Birds can .... I don't compare nature to a computer. Never have,
> never will .... [and so on] ...."
>
> These are very strong statements of certainty Platt. Not worth much
> without explantion, I'd say. These views hold out more hope of
> explanation.
>
> (1) Evidence is life HAS been created. Evolved within the laws of
> nature - time and probability amongst them.
>
> (2) Rocks can't DEFY anything, I doubt birds have sufficiently
> advanced psychology to defy anything either. We all work within the
> limits of natural laws (gravity included) by whatever means available
> to us. Birds evolved effective wings, rocks and Icarus didn't.
>
> (3) The world IS closer to being a computer than you might think. But
> don't confuse "computer" with the feeble things we humans have evloved in
> the last 35 years or so.
>
> I subscribe to my views because I suspend disbelief, and hold out for
> ever better explanation - on account as it were. You seem to simply
> hold yours - on faith or something very like it.
Well, I don't know, Ian. You seem to have equally strong statements of
certainty without much explanation, although you claim they hold out "more
hope of explanation." So I have to conclude you take your positions on as
much faith, or something like it, as I do. Some articles of faith held by
those of scientific bent like yourself are:
Faith in the proposition that that empirical verification is necessary to
establish truth, although that the truth of that proposition cannot be
empirically verified.
Faith in the creative power of chance in evolutionary theory, although
science depends on the predictable and repeatable to prove its theories.
Faith in the purposeless universe, although every living creature in it
exhibits goal-oriented behavior.
Faith in an amoral universe, although science believes it's immoral to
falsify data.
Faith in beauty as a sign of a valid theory, although no scientific
instrument can identify, measure or unravel the mystery of beauty.
So in my book, faith is as much a part of science as any religion. But,
like the faith of science that no belief that is absolutely certain, I
could be wrong. :-)
Platt
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 : Sun Dec 04 2005 - 16:15:47 GMT