Decius wrote:
] flynn23 wrote:
] ] Why does creationism have to be opposed to scientific
] method?
] ] That makes no sense! The ideologies of creationism and
] ] evolution (the practical scientific explanation) aren't
] ] mutually exclusive. You could have both. All pure
] creationism
] ] says is that there was an intelligence behind the
] architecture
] ] and execution of the universe.
]
] Et tu?
]
] The problem isn't with what you are saying, its with why you
] are saying it. Are you saying that you have intelligent design
] because you have experimental evidence that demonstrates
] intelligent design, or are you saying it because you think
] thats how it "must have worked" or because you beleive that it
] worked that way.
]
] ] For myself, the more you know about science and the Way
] Things
] ] Work, the more you logically can conclude that it was not by
]
] ] chance or circumstance. It's far too well architected and
] the
] ] necessary steps for things to happen 'on chance' are
] ] dizzyingly impossible, even given billions of years.
]
] I'm not entirely qualified to get into a detailed discussion
] of it. (Nano?) However, more then chance is involved. It
] relates to environmental pressures.
]
] For example, some bacteria of a particular type are more
] resistant to anti-biotics then others. When humans take
] anti-biotics improperly they wipe out the weak ones but leave
] the strong ones around to continue to reproduce. Eventually
] there are enough present to cause a problem again, and the
] patient takes more anti-biotics. Again, if they take them
] improperly, the weak group from the new children will be wiped
] out that the stronger survive. In this case even the weaker
] ones in the group were stronger on average then the first
] group, because they are all related to parents of the original
] strong type. This is a real problem in our world that occurs
] on human time scales. There is no evidence that any
] intelligent force is intenionally producing new super bugs.
] Its entirely a by-product of our mis-use of certain medicines.
] You can actually observe the things adapt genetically
] to environmental stimulous in a lab.
]
] In any event, a defense of evolution is irrelevent. Even if
] its a totally flawed notion this in no way provides a defence
] for intelligent design. Intelligent design must have
] experimentally verifiable evidence. It doesn't. It must stand
] on its own merit. It can't. I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm
] saying that there is no experimental evidence that it is true,
] and hence I can't use it for any purpose, nor can I reasonably
] assume that it is the case.
]
] If there is no math, then it is not science, its art. I don't
] have a problem with art until you start saying that its
] science. Its not.

I agree, but I find it humorous that the same logic that's being used to despute ID (or creationism, or whatever you want to call it) is the same logic that's being used to bolster evolution. That being since nothing has come along to disprove it, it must be correct.

Where science fails us is in the very point you make, which is that there are things in the universe that cannot be explained YET, so you must use faith and assumption to eventually get there. That's not to say cease questioning. In fact, it's the motivation that propelled the greatest discoveries in humanity. Newton, Keplar, Galilee, all the greats... all of them had to make assumptions and have faith about things that they could not reason around in order to make their discoveries. And some of them were even creationists.

The point being that it is totally plausible, even likely, that Man will not ever understand everything about the universe. It's very nature is beyond our capabilities as beings. We cannot travel the vast distances it encompasses. Hell, we can't even master the dinky ass rock we live on. Instead, we dominate it to it's own destruction. We haven't yet even begun to scratch the surface of understanding by any and all accounts, so what's to make us believe that we'll even have the mental capacity to understand It All? Which, in my mind, gives more credence to the creationist idea, since if it was architected by something else... obviously something greater than that which was created... that it would be impossible to understand it all.

So I guess that I might fall into the "must have worked" this way camp to some degree instead of the "may have worked". But I don't think that limits the motivation or purview for discovering "how it worked". In my mind, it's very much like hacking. You try and reverse engineer something until you understand it fully. It's the same whether it be a hard product or biology. The only difference I see in the approach of understanding is that with a hard product, it's well understood that someone designed it. A being of equal capabilities. With biology or physics, that's not agreed upon, but may be a key assumption to take with you in trying.

RE: Wired 12.10: George Gilder is Dead!