49393Re: Creationism etc
- Feb 9, 2012Yes, and this is the tip of the iceberg (Steve Talbot's commentary and research is a solid, sober source for new insight, and an index to his articles can be found here: http://www.netfuture.org/ ). There's a lot more surprises awaiting the 'physics envy people', but who, according to the complacent opinion of our resident scholar on WC, aren't actually significant anyway:
"The very idea that what
scientists study can be reduced to physics -- of whatever kind -- is by no means
a consensus held by scientists as such; lots of biologists and chemists and
others refer to this idea disparagingly as "physics imperialism" (and not a few
physicists find fault with it as well)."
Peter Staudenmaier, WC message 12345
The trouble, however, is that the issue is not really about the envy of the explanatory success of theory in physics but the fact that for comparable results higher up the ontological pyramid one needs to *change one's thinking*; it's really this that blocks the route to the necessary changes. It's hard uncertain work when you're working from the old, familiar paradigms of explanation of the physical world - maths and primary qualities - that have served so well for the last four centuries, towards the new. There's no guarantees that people will make the change - a typical example of the more dogmatic type of individual one frequently encounters can be seen on one of the blogs recommended by a WC denizen: see 'Guy Chapman''s comment at the end of the article at: http://www.james-gray.org/heavenly-beings-and-astral-forces/ . This individual suffers not only from 'physics imperialism' but also a remarkable arrogance, coupled to what must be an astonishingly narrow world-view. In my experience, there are many, many people like this in the West, who are unlikely to want to change.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Maurice McCarthy <manselton@...> wrote:
> Concerning the non-randomness of variation, there was an experiment in
> the last 10 years on different strains of E. Coli and it was shown
> that the amount of mutation increases when they are under stress, e.g.
> by making their environment a little more acidic. This illustrates
> that variation is not random. I'll try to dig out the reference. I
> don't know if the experimenter reached the conclusion that the
> colonies in each petrie dish were acting as wholes in a
> self-supporting manner.
> On another point, the genetic dogma of one gene one protein seems to
> have been bust by the results of the Human Genome Project, amongst
> other research. The same gene can make different proteins and
> causality on the bio-molecular level has been shown to act in two
> directions. The protein can affect the reactions supposedly coming
> from the gene.
> Bravo! They've crushed Dawkins physics envy by pursuing truth in the
> science. The selfish gene is shown to be a falsehood.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>