Re: OT: Intelligent Falling

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:19:06 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>The irony here, of course, is that the technology was available in
>Galileo's day to build flying machines like hot-air balloons and hang
>gliders; it wouldn't have been all that difficult. The only thing it
>lacked was the imagination to believe it to be possible.
>
>People of Galileo's time saw birds and squirrels fly, and trees
>uprooted by the wind, and believed in angels and dragons, so manned
>flight wasn't even much of a leap.
>
>There are still lots of radical things that are achievable if people
>are first willing to admit they're possible. Very eminent scientists
>told Townes that maser action was forbidden by thermodynamics.

No one should feel the least bit sheepish about having an imagination
capable of novel ideas. You are right to value that. Coupled to a
rigorous mind, it can be an awesome thing.

You wrote, "the simplest explanation for DNA is that it was designed,"
and it may be a suggestion for an inquiry of some kind. I've heard it
before, of course, certainly in some rather old SF stories, in fact.
So it's not as though you've suggested something novel or scary to
think about. But it's not to be compared on equal footing with
science theory. And I read you doing just that.

Let me requote all of what I'm thinking about, here:

> Life creates complexity from simplicity. You are more complex
> than the carrots you eat, and the carrots are more complex than
> sunlight and water.

This plays down the grander implications of what you were about to
say, by saying something few would viscerally disagree with. At least,
that is, if they keep their blinders on as to where you are about to
lead them. But there is no rigor to your meaning of 'complex' here,
except to draw upon common ideas about it -- not quantitative ones or
objective ones. But who can argue at this point, assuming a vulgar
and imprecise meaning?

So let's see where you were headed, now:

> The simplest explanation for DNA is that it was designed;

It is neither simplest, as other posts have already amply indicated,
nor is it an explanation.

> nice job, in fact.

A pat on the back of whomever and, anyway, who could possibly disagree
that our DNA is nice? Of course, it carries with it the underlying
assumption of the claim you just made and walks right on past it,
nonchalantly.

> But any explanation for the origin of the universe is hopelessly
> flawed, so any opinion, including the orthodox ones,
> is about as good as any other.

Okay, so let's get down to brass tacks.

What you offered isn't an explanation, at all. And in order to
justify the fact that you aren't really offering anything of any
value, you then, with a wide sweeping brush, toss away without so much
as a nod a great deal of important work that has gone on and continues
to proceed now by scientists who really are taking steps to increase
our body of scientific knowledge in that direction. One gets from
ignorance to some knowledge in steps. Steps are being taken. But not
by your suggestion.

As I noted, your comment is no explanation at all -- despite your
contrary assertion. It doesn't have quantitative potential, does
nothing to inform us about the will or intentions of such aliens,
foretells nothing at all that we can observe -- even conceptually, let
alone practically, adds no novel breadth or depth about what to expect
when we look, ... it is utterly and fundamentally useless.

It explains nothing -- it is not an explanation.

You might just as well have said Loki did it, for all the explanatory
power it provides.

"The cause supposedly given, we still know not the effect."

Jon
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Intelligent Falling
    ... >You wrote, "the simplest explanation for DNA is that it was designed," ... >and it may be a suggestion for an inquiry of some kind. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: What happened to the University of California Admissions Case?
    ... Public school started pushing evolution when I was in 6th grade. ... was never any suggestion that any other explanation was possible. ... after year, straight from the textbook without commentary or debate, it ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Unicon Xv Logo Design Competition
    ... Ken, thanks for the explanation. ... suggestion for the future that might make a difference since there were ... Jamey ... unicycle6869's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/8990 ...
    (rec.sport.unicycling)
  • Re: OT - Why No Tea and Sympathy?
    ... >Was that an explanation - or a suggestion? ... >Theory don't mean squat if it don't work. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Op-Ed: DNA Evidence of an Intelligent Designer
    ... A good number of scientists from various scientific fields are ... "Discoveries in mathematics and biology are making way for Design and ... According to Insight, Thaxton's argument is that the DNA molecule, the ... better explanation for the origin and existence of that information. ...
    (talk.origins)