Re: Teaching ID as religion is a dangerous affair

jonathan wrote:

"Jo Schaper" <joschapern4ospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:11por3tbvtimua9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

jonathan wrote:


Why can't science make a concession on asking why?

I don's see asking why as being an unscientific question.
After all, asking how is the first necessary step in
answering the bigger, more meaningful, question of
why.


 "Why?" is not an unscientific question, if indeed it pertains to
observed causation. Why did the water turn to ice? Because the
temperature reached 32 degrees Fahrenheit, which is the temperature at
which crystal lattices form in pure liquid water. How do we know this?
By countless observations involving falling temperature by multiple
means, pans of water and a thermometer.

The 'why' which science cannot answer is the 'why?' which asks "for what
purpose?"  Once you ask, For what purpose?, or from what motivation?
you've shifted from science into religion, philosophy or law, in which
evidence may be presented for a particular point of view, but whose
veracity is always in question because there are multiple correct
answers for the same phenomenon.



Then try answering these questions. Why do a hurricane, a galaxy
and a cauliflower take the same form? 

They don't.

Why do the bulk of animal
life on earth have two eyes and four limbs?

Convergent evolution. Certain environmental factors press on life to evolve towards forms which answer the requirements of those conditions. Example: All cavefish species (evolved from surface forms) eventually end up with extremely similar characteristics, because those are the ones which favor survival, or are no longer needed to cope with non-existent conditions. Cavefish generally end up eyeless (not needed, source of injury and infection in the dark) depigmented (no need for pigment to guard against solar radiation and with exaggerated lateral line or other vibration-related detection systems (if it moves, it is either food, or an enemy). Same reason most advanced life on earth has two eyes and four limbs (although an argument can be made that insects, which make up the bulk of all life on earth by weight, have neither).

Why do these distinctly
different things show similar forms and order? 

See above.

Why is it that physical
and living systems show similar abstract mathematical properties?

I am unaware of any physical or living system which knows about math than humans.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Life and Exoplanets (Was: Belief in God is NOT incompatible with science!!)
    ... of vast energy resources greater than Earth (such as Venus). ... sense than having to consider that all life upon Earth is terrestrial ... >They would need to have liquid water on the surface. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Celebrate Evolution! today
    ... science, while it's NOT a science book, when it does touch on aspect ... he presented evidence that the earth ... Consider, too, the earth?s amazing water cycle. ... This remarkable process, which makes life on dry land possible, was ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: Question on "Searchable Symmetric Encryption: Imroved Definitions and Efficient Constructions" p
    ... Everyone slowly practise until clean unwilling ... Everyone roll organic periods above the casual encouraging airport, ... differentiate Gul and Waleed's bizarre sentiment. ... driving in Rahavan's fool might fly some detailed contrarys. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Is the Universe Fine Tuned for Life? 2
    ... I am asking you "what, outside of the Sun, Moon, and the Earth itself, ... is needed to sustain life as we know it on Earth". ... A person has X amount of water. ... Tell me how you would create a universe capable of sustaining just 1 ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Snowball earth, when and why it happened.
    ... Snowball earth, ... CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, ... ground is absorbed by water in the first 30 feet. ... Note that as the temperature increases the water vapor becomes ...
    (soc.retirement)