Re: Teaching ID as religion is a dangerous affair

"Glen" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:qG_mf.2530$nm.2506@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> "Jo Schaper" <joschapern4ospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:11poqcaff8pt85b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> Evolution is not the central organizing principle of the physical
>> sciences. Just because processes have sequentiality does not make the
>> 'evolution'.

> People love to slap labels on physical and natural processes that
> defy categorization. One can easily claim everything from atoms
> to galaxies to fine arts "evolve", and this claim is subject to the
> exact same ambiguity as that made for biological evolution. It's
> an attempt at slapping a label on something which cannot be
> comprehensively defined.

Evolution requires branching to more then one possible outcome. Since
the physical processes we usually deem predictable in outcome have, in
reality, statistical outcomes, there is branching available though it
is relatively speaking a rarity and is usually ignored. When charting
results science students are trained to ignore and discard points
which are fall outside the range of numbers expected.

The growth of crystals is one area in which we can clearly see the
statistical nature of nature. As a really obvious example consider
the inclusions in diamonds. There are many others, of course, but
we're usually busy looking at the main and primary result and tend
to ignore such branching where it does happen.

Biological evolution is interested in the deviations and follows them
till they either fail or become obvious successes in their own right
because it is successful deviations which are deemed important.

In the physical sciences we tend to discard deviant results unless
they result in an accidental discovery of something useful.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Question Gerrit Wont Answer
    ... (which nearly all practitioners regard as ... do accept that there are fake sciences?) ... cultural evolution. ... been low (with little or no need of language). ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... or better scientific theories. ... Second error: Sciences disprove creation. ... the evolution mecanism work. ...
    (talk.atheism)
  • Re: Philosophical Difference
    ... "why some people, many of whom are actually relatively intelligent, would ... > deny the findings of just about every single branch of the natural ... > sciences just to maintain that the Earth is only a few thousand years ... "Evolution is possibly the single most-supported theory in the biological ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
    ... Evolutionary and Molecular Biology: Scientific Perspectives on Divine ... between theology and the natural sciences. ... Processes of Organic Evolution, Evolution, Molecular ... Academy of Arts and Sciences, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • [R_Catholic-L] Pope JPII on Evolution
    ... Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution ... To the Members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences taking part in the Plenary ... whom I commend to the Lord of life. ... was created in the image and likeness of God. ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)