[MD] Intelligent Design

[Ian Glendinning]

It's not you I'm getting at by the way Steve ... (the level of
wingnuttiness around here means you're one of those it's possible to
have an enlightened conversation with).

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Steven Peterson
<peterson.steve at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Ian Glendinning
> <ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Steve, it's the conflation of creation and design that is driving me nuts.
>
> Steve:
> If it's really bugging you, perhaps you'll explain the distinction you
> want to draw?

[IG] I would have thought that was what I just did.
I'm distinguishing between
Creation - Conjuring something out of nothing.
Evolution - Creation of interesting things in the universe.
(How hard can that be ?)
>
> Ian:
>> Science has nothing to do with creation (of something from nothing).
>
> Steve:
> What makes you think so?

[IG] Huh. That ball is in your court if you disagree.
Give me any possible plausible suggestion it could be otherwise.

(Briefly - science explains things in terms of physical processes,
demonstrable empirically from before and after situations, causes and
effects, events - and controlled events, like experiments. Those
processes assume things like time and physical laws ... even if
assuming them is part of the hypothesis being tested ... what
processes work on no-thing and no-time, before existence and time ?
Mathematical physics formulae if you prefer, where the variables don't
stand for things / stand for no-things in the physical world ... not
sure what level of science you're into.)

> Ian:
>> Evolution of things (big bangs, galaxies and people) since creation
>> need have nothing to do with any god, since in principle it is
>> amenable to science. Of course being amenable in principle is a long
>> way from being scientifically tractable in practice, so in order not
>> to waste everyone's time on pointless argument some mythos-based gap
>> fillers are useful. (Life being too short and just complicated enough
>> - ask Goldilocks)
>
>
> Steve:
> Creationists and religious folks generally say the opposite--that the
> fact that the universe is amenable to science is no argument against
> their belief that all of this must be guided by God.

[iG] Bleedin' obviously. Read my lips. I said "need" have nothing to
do with any god and mythos-based gap fillers "are useful". I'm not
arguing with anyone - though it seems to be the point for so many.
(I'm separating that fact ... of what religious people choose to
believe - and why - from science. If religious people choose to
believe things that are contrary to demonstrable science, that's a
different matter .... but that is wingnut territory.)

>
>
> Ian:
>> Cosmogeny (metaphyisical or theological) has nothing to do with
>> science ever, not even in principle.
>>
>> How hard can it be ?
>
> Steve:
> Cosmogeny is a branch of astrophysics.

[IG] Utter bollox - that is part of the problem that cosmologists
don't know what cosmogeny is, and seem to have forgotten what science
is too. Please read what I said (and the ten or so links I provided)
Don't take my word for it. That in fact is a main point - to get us
out of the SOMist polarized gain-saying trap.

>
> You get so frustrated (how hard can it be?) but you don't explain
> yourself.

[IG] Utter bollox again. I write screeds on this argument, and link to
many who explain it their ways too. I can't be accountable for people
who don't read - or who get their science from popular media. If
people read and ask questions I reply. This is not about my
explanations, or about me at all. Life is just complicated enough not
to be explicable in one-liner emails I find.

> What makes you think that science has nothing to do with
> cosmogeny even in principle? What sort of knowledge is possible that
> science can't even in principle try to know?

[IG] Cosmogeny, as I said. (How hard can it be ;-)

As I say - I make the bold (and very simple) assertion - so I ask you
to show any flaw in what I say. If you can suggest any remotely
possible way science can explain something from nothing, I'd really
like to hear it (don't tell me people disagree - that's not news -
most of the SOMist world does - that's the point). Point me to a
theory, show me an equation, a paper, anything ... even your own
argument if you prefer it (but this is not a new subject).

It's always possible to ask more questions - that's easy, but
ultimately it's just obfuscation.

Ian

>
> Best,
> Steve
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>