Re: Changing times for design in science
>Charles P: I truly appreciate your honest impressions. I want to impose a point of view of using only empirical and verifiable evidence for the description of the origin and diversity of life.Kurt: That's a rather sterile approach to impose don't ya think? Pretty sure points of view don't work like that. The answer to the diversity of life is staring you right in the face right now in the form of diversity of opinion. It's messy and jumbled and we spend our lives getting answers by putting pieces together. Right or wrong, silly or brilliant, educated or ignorant, some ideas endure, some don't, that's the risk we all take, both in adopting the ideas of others and in offering our own. Looking for answers to be put before you on a platter of empirical and verifiable evidence might not be all together realistic.
>Charles P: I am expecting the facts to reveal descriptions like the nine basic principles of natural genetic engineering as described by James A Shapiro. Neither Gluadys nor Stewart have read Evolution: A View From The 21st Century.Kurt: I cked out Shapiro on line but likely I won't be reading it either. (though from what I can glean G and S have a better understanding than you give them credit for) I won't read it partly because theres too much other stuff that holds my interest, but mosty I won't read it for the same reason I won't read things like L Ron Hubbard or John 3:16 when I hear them recommended with your kind of fervor. I've talk with G and S about this before, if you believe you have the inside track on what is responsible for life, if you think your belief should be taught to children, if you think a community would be better served by adopting it, then listen up, you are amoung the religious. I've been following your posts for weeks and honestly, if that is not the impression you wish to give you might rethink your approach
>Charles P: On the subject of natural genetic engineering, neither Gluadys nor Stewart are well educated. Their narratives are direct, but not honest when they debate a subject without doing their homework.Kurt: Careful. Accusing others of dishonesty is a dicey business. It often says more of you than of them.
>1 Kurt, please reread my Message 30,036 where I said, "Everything that Shapiro says here is consistent with the 21st Century understanding of evolutionary processes but NOT YOUR understanding of evolutionary processes. So, instead of searching for mistakes in what I report here, you need to find a copy of Evolution: A View From The 21st Century to learn about biology as an information science".Kurt: Not looking for mistakes. You've got plenty of information and facts up the ying yang, I'm not a Scientist, just a regular guy who is interested in what matters. What is your personal extrapolation on why the work of Shapiro matters?
>2 Kurt, please reread where I do not appreciate the guilt-by-associate comments. Both Gluadys and Stewart talk about creationists as if it is an insult to a person's character.
>4 Kurt, you asked if I am using science to look for God. Everyone should now know and understand Godel*s Incompleteness Theorem from 1931. It is your definition of God that I don*t believe in, Kurt.Kurt: How in the world can you claim to know my definition of god? Sheesh! I don't even have one! And no,I will not go chasing Godel to answer a question I've asked of you! Please, take a good look at your own evasiveness, would ya? In my conversation with G and S I shared my observation that evolutionary theory serves, for many folks, the same function as any other believe system, that the same underlying desire to seek a creator motivates both evolutionary theory and religion equally and that this can be taking place even when the evolution-believer considers himself to be making purely rational, intellectual decisions. I've tempered my view a bit since but after following your posts I think you are a good case for making my point.
Charles: I do not identify with the notion of a creator.
Kurt: Sorry, that is not the impression you give.
> Charles P: Thank you, Kurt, for your understanding of my motives for participating here on Origins Talk. I hope that you will share more of your ideas with us. We can all learn something new when we can accept the ideas of others as being axiomatic. The fun part is the pathway to the never 100% attainable *truth* as we seek empirical and verifiable answers to the questions of *why* and *how*.Kurt: You have yet to express you motives, Charles. Other than having an unhealthy attraction to the words axiomatic, empirical and verifiable I can't tell what the heck you're all about. I had stopped posting for a while, found myself starting a repeat-myself-loop. But a brain researcher named Andrew Newberg has written quite a bit that is interesting to me on why we are so attached to answering the big questions, looking for god and so on. Will start posting again soon to get some feedback on how it reads to me.
--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
> Kurt: I've followed the discussion between you, glaudys and Stewart. Your
> passion for this topic is clear and you obviously have a large resouvour of
> information that could only come for years of personal dedication. So my
> question to you is why? Why do you feel compelled to express yourself on
> this issue? I ask because I'm interested in what is in common between all
> those who look for answers to these big questions, whether creationist,
> science-oriented or otherwise. I hope you'll take a moment and share what
> you feel is really at stake here. Why do you feel your beliefs on this
> issue are worth agruing for? Why does this issue matter to you?
> Charles P: Thank you, Kurt, for your questions. The 21st Century is
> *probably* the second time in the history of humanity that we can all come
> together to *discuss* and not to *debate* the description for the origin
> and diversity of life. The Internet provides us with all of the evidence,
> but it is up to each one of us to interpret that evidence to fit in with
> our own personal philosophies.
> Charles P: The first time in the history of humanity was *probably* when
> ancient scriptures were written. For reasons that I do not understand,
> some people have difficulty accepting the opposite point of view as
> axiomatic. Some people believe that their interpretations of the evidence
> are *right* and that any different interpretations are *wrong*. Some
> people are willing to go to war to impose their dogmas on others. Some
> people are willing to compromise *the truth* by reaching a settlement of
> differences in which each side makes concessions.
> Charles P: I feel compelled to express myself on this issue of *the truth*
> because it is attainable if: (1) we do not go to war defending dogmas and
> (2) we do not compromise *the truth*. We could all have some interesting
> *discussions* as we each search for that pathway to *the truth* and we each
> learn from the ideas of others. Unfortunately, there are too many people
> who just want to *debate* and they want to use rhetoric to impose their
> dogmas on the population.
> Charles P: Scientific evidence is the best pathway to *the truth*. Each
> of us needs to learn for ourselves the difference between a *theory* and a
> *theorem*. It is an individual choice. I am tentatively willing to give
> up what I know to be a *theorem* for the purpose of discussions. It is
> tentative, not a compromise, and for the purpose of learning something new
> by asking questions like "why" and "how". When we reach the end of the
> discussions, it is up to me to make my choices about which are *the truth*
> that are compatible with my personal philosophies. It is up to you to make
> your choices about which are *the truth* that are compatible with your
> personal philosophies. Neither of us should try to impose our *theorems*
> on others. We can always agree to disagree.
> Charles P: I have never been able to understand why Gluadys or Stewart
> want to *debate* rather than to *discuss* the scientific evidence.
> Sometimes I think that they are trying to impose their *theorems* on me
> rather than question whether or not their *theorems* are really *theories*
> about which they never asked the questions of *why* and *how*. They seem
> to want to impose the label of *creationist* on me. These
> *guilt-by-association* claims are because the 20th Century version of The
> Theory of Evolution are *assumed* to be a set of theorems that should never
> be questioned. Anyone who questions the theorems are *anti-science* or are
> practicing the *pseudoscience of creationism*. James A Shapiro has had the
> same experiences and Jim in Missouri left our group for the same reasons.
> I hope that Jim will rejoin us someday.
> James A Shapiro: These articles with Rick are important to me (and to this
> blog) for two reasons. The first is that shortly after we submitted them,
> Rick became a momentary celebrity of the Intelligent Design movement.
> Critics have taken my co-authorship with Rick as an excuse for
> *guilt-by-association* claims that I have some ID or Creationist agenda, an
> allegation with no basis in anything I have written.
> James A Shapiro: The second reason the two articles with Rick are
> important is because they were, frankly, prescient, anticipating the recent
> ENCODE results. Our basic idea was that the genome is a highly
> sophisticated information storage organelle. Just like electronic data
> storage devices, the genome must be highly formatted by generic (i.e.
> repeated) signals that make it possible to access the stored information
> when and where it will be useful.
> Charles P: Thank you, Kurt, for your understanding of my motives for
> participating here on Origins Talk. I hope that you will share more of
> your ideas with us. We can all learn something new when we can accept the
> ideas of others as being axiomatic. The fun part is the pathway to the
> never 100% attainable *truth* as we seek empirical and verifiable answers
> to the questions of *why* and *how*.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]