Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/ 9/04 3:48pm
In reply to:
Duane
's message, "Actually..." on 10/ 3/04 11:02pm
>>>It's very strange I tell you, they'll read books of
>>>all sorts that basically hammer home the same point
>>>over and over and over again, that all systems have a
>>>tendency to move from a simple state to a complex
>>>state
>>
>>That's what may be in books, but the problem is that
>>point isn't quite true, and that none of the known
>>"self-organizing" processes have the potential to
>>create the kind of order we see in life.
>
>Actually, it *is* true.
Really? Then please submit your theories to peer-reviewed scientific journals how life could have formed without artificial intervention. Of course, you have no such theory. None of the known self-organizing processes have that potential.
> I think you have some work
>to do to define some of the things you said here -
>like, what do you mean by the "kind" of order we see
>in life?
The kind we see in life, what could roughly be described as organized complexity or functional information due to the level and sort of interactivity between its various components (e.g. the information-rich system, read Mere Creation for more info).
>And what do you consider to be the "known"
>self-organizing processes?
All the ones we know of. None of them is known to create life from non-life without artificial intervention.
>>Cars and other machinery tend to break down
>>without continuous maintenance, for instance.
>>All
>>known organisms, even with constant maintenance from
>>biochemical processes, also eventually die and break
>>down.
>
>But that doesn't actually address the issue of
>self-organization at all.
But it does address the issue of what I was actually referring to: the claim that "that all systems have a tendency to move from a simple state to a complex state." Note the title of my previous post and the entropy principle. If anything, there are numerous systems that have a tendency (though not invariability) to go from order to disorder—not self-organization. Ever hear of the second law of thermodynamics?
>>>all organizations that I've heard about have
>>>all had that tendency, and unless I've been looking
>>>somewhere else
>
>Self-organization is almost a neccessary consequence
>of any system with enough simple rules of interaction
>and enough fundamental entities.
The problem is that "all systems" having that tendency is just plain false. Put together the components of a car in a pile. Will they self-organize to build a car? How about after a million years?
>>Given the real facts at hand (which
>>you seem to be somewhat ignorant of, given the remark
>>about all systems moving towards higher complexity),
>>it shouldn't be surprising that by now there are a few
>>scientists thinking that they don't exist.
>
>It's quite ironic that you'd be accusing someone of
>being ignorant of the facts in this case, when it
>seems to be you who are ignorant of the facts.
>Self-organization has been observed for absurdly
>simple artificial systems.
Note what I said about ALL systems having this tendency. I explicitly said that self-organization exists for some systems. You appear to be ignorant of my own words! How ironic for you to say that I seem to be ignorant of the facts. Again, please be a bit more careful.
>>>friend "Behe" would be
>>>wise not only to give a plausible reason for his
>>>continued support for a theory as outlandish as ID
>>
>>I don't see why it's outlandish. We humans infer
>>design all the time. Isn't it possible, at least in
>>principle, to infer design from life?
>
>Sure, it's possible, and it's a neat idea, too. But
>ID ends there - it's just a neato idea, without
>anything new or innovative to prop it up.
It has evidence, solves problems the old paradigm has not solved etc. Pretending the scientific merits don't exist doesn't make them go away.
>>Behe and other ID adherents have tried to present
>>plausible reasons for their theory. And I think some
>>of them, at least in principle, are quite plausible.
>>Nonetheless, I still think we should keep at it a few
>>decades to confirm the prediction of ID theory.
>
>And that's fine - the proponents of ID *can* keep at
>it. But you can't expect anyone to believe you until
>you can demonstrate at least some evidence
Ignoring the existence of evidence doesn't make it go away.
>Because ID's reinterpretation requires a new strong
>assumption - the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
> It's a pretty astounding claim, and you need pretty
>astounding evidence to back it up.
Abiogenesis' interpretation requires a strong assumption: the existence of natural processes that can somehow make certain aspects of life, a highly sophisticated biochemical machine. It's a pretty astounding claim, and you need pretty astounding evidence to back it up.
>>ID theory in its current state does provide testable
>>and potentially falsifiable predictions. One example:
>>we should not be able find any non-artificial
>>processes that are reasonably capable of creating life
>>from non-life.
>
>Well, we're steadily making progress towards that.
>The latest hypotheses have been at least preliminarily
>verified, and they seem to agree even with our latest
>pending shift in the central dogma of genetics (You
>can Google "RNA origins of life" to get started -
>Breaker at Yale did some neat stuff at Yale in 98,
>still doing interesting work on the capabilities of
>naturally-occurring RNA molecules.)
Already noted at least one serious problem with the RNA world hypothesis. I can hardly consider it verified.
>>Perhaps decades of fervent research
>>are needed to confirm this prediction before ID theory
>>is accepted, but I see no reason to reject ID theory
>>by fiat like some opponents seem to want to do.
>
>No, Wade - it's not being rejected by fiat.
That's what it sounds like to me. You haven't given one iota of scientific evidence against it. You seem to be saying we should continue to solve the problems of the old paradigm, and that appealing to a new paradigm which solves and predicts such problems is being "lazy."
What do you think would happen if I made the same claim for ID theory? Is their special pleading here?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 