oldest theory disproved(ot but great)
- Thread starter alsih2o
- Start date
Desdichado
Hero
Dr. Harry -- I agree; we seem to be down to arguing semantics and fine points at this point, in which case, we can probably stop and say we have a fairly complete understanding of each other's position. 
Henry -- I do hope I wasn't out of line, but I did my darndest to keep the discussion in line with board rules and not bring anything religious or political into the discussion, as tempting as it occasionally was to do so. Evolution is a fascinating topic, though, which I think world designers could do with at least a fair understanding of. I've certainly made it crucial to the setting of some science fiction settings I've developed in the past, and it's also helped me focus tremendously on fantasy settings as well, even though it doesn't play (obviously, I think) as crucial a role.
I've done sci-fi setting, for example, that focus on the implied problems I describe, and how they could have come to pass (I explained them away with genetic engineering by gray aliens.)
Henry -- I do hope I wasn't out of line, but I did my darndest to keep the discussion in line with board rules and not bring anything religious or political into the discussion, as tempting as it occasionally was to do so.
Evolution is a fascinating topic, though, which I think world designers could do with at least a fair understanding of. I've certainly made it crucial to the setting of some science fiction settings I've developed in the past, and it's also helped me focus tremendously on fantasy settings as well, even though it doesn't play (obviously, I think) as crucial a role.I've done sci-fi setting, for example, that focus on the implied problems I describe, and how they could have come to pass (I explained them away with genetic engineering by gray aliens.)
Last edited:
Celebrim
Legend
I happen to work in an lab that works on genetic evolution, and I have a background in computer science. I spend alot of the day writing strings of 1's and 0's, and looking at strings of a's, t's, c's, and g's.
I don't have a problem with evolution itself. Evolution and the capacity for evolution (itself apparantly an evolved trait) seems well documented. I have no problems with evolution explaining the complexity of life as it exists at present, though I think that we are far from understanding the process and that to a large extent that process may have been lost to history.
But as a computer scientist who is familiar with the workings of code within those 'rigidly defined regions of chaos', I'm seriously inclined to think that the creation of a working sequence of protein building code suitable for life to begin is not something that should have been expected to happen in the lifetime of the universe despite the number of experiments that took place. Any scientist that tells you otherwise is not basing his statement on the present state of our knowledge, but on his faith that we will eventually discover some such knowledge that will allow us to say that no design or unfathomable miracle was required for life to begin - not just on this planet - but anywhere in the universe.
But at present, we just don't know and I very much wish that both sides of the stupid debate that always crops up whenever we mention science would drop thier whole arrogant pretension of complete understanding and do as Job did when God questioned him from the whirlwind regarding the origin of the universe - keep his mouth shut.
That's all I have to say. I hope that wasn't too offensive Morris.
I don't have a problem with evolution itself. Evolution and the capacity for evolution (itself apparantly an evolved trait) seems well documented. I have no problems with evolution explaining the complexity of life as it exists at present, though I think that we are far from understanding the process and that to a large extent that process may have been lost to history.
But as a computer scientist who is familiar with the workings of code within those 'rigidly defined regions of chaos', I'm seriously inclined to think that the creation of a working sequence of protein building code suitable for life to begin is not something that should have been expected to happen in the lifetime of the universe despite the number of experiments that took place. Any scientist that tells you otherwise is not basing his statement on the present state of our knowledge, but on his faith that we will eventually discover some such knowledge that will allow us to say that no design or unfathomable miracle was required for life to begin - not just on this planet - but anywhere in the universe.
But at present, we just don't know and I very much wish that both sides of the stupid debate that always crops up whenever we mention science would drop thier whole arrogant pretension of complete understanding and do as Job did when God questioned him from the whirlwind regarding the origin of the universe - keep his mouth shut.
That's all I have to say. I hope that wasn't too offensive Morris.
caudor
Adventurer
Celebrim said:
Hi there. I appreciate your comments, although please keep in mind that a lot of folks here come to relax and have debates over really 'stupid stuff'. Most folks are merely shooting from the hip when speculating about things we know little about; it is a welcome release for others. Some will even try to impress. But that's part of the fun of message boards.
The topic as presented is rather non-serious, so I'd suggest relaxing and joining in. Or as Mr. T put it: don't take your jive too serious.
Dr. Harry
First Post
Celebrim said:
You may, of course, hold any number of personal opinions, and the two statements above are only statements of personal opinion. I would suggest that you examine the questions from a chemical/biological standpoint, and avoid the flawed "information theory" approach to analysing evolution (links in previous post). You seem to have a great problem that those actually trained and working in the field do not have. It might be because everyone is arrogant but you, or that you don't understand the fundamental questions involved as well as you think you do.
Furthermore, the ideas that (1) the natural world is understandable in natural terms and (2) it is possible for human beings to understand those processes are philosophical tenets of science, and it would be grossly misleading to refer to them as "faith"-based. It is possible for scientists to have a wide range of personal beliefs outside the *methological* naturalism of the lab
Celebrim said:
Removing your reference to your religious beliefs, I have seen nothing here at least that claims complete understanding, but as a scientist (physicist and astronomer), I can't pass up the chance to celebrate how much we really *do* know!
Desdichado
Hero
I hope you mean this in a general sense and not a specific sense -- that's exactly my position, that we don't know enough to confidently explain evolution or the origin of life, and I expect there are gaping hole's in our knowledge that could potentially throw fairly extreme changes into our understanding of it. I'm certainly not attempting to hold myself out as someone who has all the answers, and I've rather specifically said so.Celebrim said:
Branduil
Hero
Hi. I don't mean to get drawn into a religious debate here, but I feel I should address a few things.
Of course many scientists have beliefs outside of their lab. However, this does not change the fact that Naturalism is indeed a faith-based belief. There is no way to prove that Naturalism, or the idea that one can understand the universe in natural terms, without using naturalism itself as proof. This is circular reasoning.
Of course, circular reasoning is not automatically wrong, as some may assume. However, it does mean that belief in that line of reasoning is pure faith. In this case, the belief that one can understand the universe in natural terms is the Naturalist's ultimate presupposition. It cannot be proved. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, as everybody in the world, from Steven Hawking to the aborigines in Australia has an ultimate presupposition.
However, it is inherently disingenuous to imply that scientists do not have an ultimate presupposition, or that any other scientist with a different ultimate presupposition is not really one. I do not wish to draw this into a debate of evolution, I just want all sides to display the necessary intellectual honesty necessary for debate.
Dr. Harry said:
Of course many scientists have beliefs outside of their lab. However, this does not change the fact that Naturalism is indeed a faith-based belief. There is no way to prove that Naturalism, or the idea that one can understand the universe in natural terms, without using naturalism itself as proof. This is circular reasoning.
Of course, circular reasoning is not automatically wrong, as some may assume. However, it does mean that belief in that line of reasoning is pure faith. In this case, the belief that one can understand the universe in natural terms is the Naturalist's ultimate presupposition. It cannot be proved. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, as everybody in the world, from Steven Hawking to the aborigines in Australia has an ultimate presupposition.
However, it is inherently disingenuous to imply that scientists do not have an ultimate presupposition, or that any other scientist with a different ultimate presupposition is not really one. I do not wish to draw this into a debate of evolution, I just want all sides to display the necessary intellectual honesty necessary for debate.
Similar Threads
