Science Forums 2

[HydrogenBond]

Hi Buffy:

I do not mean to sound like an ID person. I am a scientist playing the Devil's advocate. I do the same to ID people. I prefer science because it is willing to pull its head out of the sand and look for a rational explanation of the world around it ,based on the laws of nature. ID says that the laws of nature are the mind of God, who can transcend space and time, making things happen; poof here we are! Their God does not worry their pretty little heads with all the details. But as a scientist, I am curious and would like to know more about these details.

When it comes to the evolution of reality/life the two camps both have their short comings. ID uses a God of order while slacking on the details; it had to be orderred to form so fast. While Evolution relies on a God of Random so it can open up endless options for itself, both real and illusionary; the scientific truth is in there somewhere.

What I believe needs to happen is orderred science. Let us take away the convenience of randomness and require science go back to logic without the enormous flexibility and convenience of randomness. This change of orientation would narrow down the possible options. Then we go from there.

As far as living state goes, the theory of genetic mutations is too nebulus. It allows anything to happen both real and imaginary, leading to endless debate and opinion within science. The one thing that we all agree upon is that there was a positive progression over time. But what made mutations progress in a positive way? The current answer is equally nebulus; selective evolution. Selective evolution is equally nebulous because its also allows endless scenarios both real and illusionary.

Once science allows its scientists to deal in illusions using the scientific method, science is promoting alchemy. I can not defend alchemy any more than I can defend ID. But with the random approach there is no meter stick to tell the difference between the illusions and real science, since they both use the very same methods and apparatus of science.

This is a subtle point. For example, there is a new theory about dinosaur extinction connected to greenhouse gases and earth temperature rising. It is supported by some observational data and computer models. The asteroid scenario is also supported by solid science, but in this case the earth gets cold. These are two mutually exclusive choices so they can not both be true at the same time. Using simple logic, at least one must be an illusion even though it is based on solid scientific method. Solid scientific method based on a faulty or fanciful premise.

Logical orderred science is where all the greatest discoveries of science come from. Random science is good for a lot of little baby steps, so it does have practical use. But random science also makes many random mistakes along the way; alchemy. The drunk takes his long random walk home. While the sober man walks straight home in less time. The drunk man can see pink elephants, while the sober man can only see gray ones.