Scientific Prophecy - Creative Force - Opinion?

by Science101 29 Replies latest jw friends

Deputy Dog

Deputy Dog
And today's raspberry for childish petulance goes to you.
Looks like I forgot to raise my hand. I hope he doesn't make me stay after school.
Abaddon

You can carry on proving my point by further childishness a long as you like.
Terry

We are trapped by language and freed by math.
But, when we use language to discuss math we are back in our trap.
Science measures, quantifies, predicts, compiles, extrapolates and tests.
Language describes and signifies.
Meaning what?
As long you understand that "FORCES" means language has replaced data you are safe from religious metaphor.
Data is data. When we interpret data we are on a tightrope.
Think of the phrase "CREATIVE FORCE" as a loaded premise with a hidden structure that hasn't been tested or defined. It stacks the deck before the deal.
How do you define "Creative"? The constant shuffling and remingling of molecules is only creative AFTER the fact and must be viewed telelogically rather than pre-emptively to be accurate and to avoid the presumption of "guidance" or "intention".
Superstition gives us the need to fit phenomena into a story and anthropmorphize it.
Science gives us the constituent parts and movements of those parts and measures when/where/how.
Beyond that is just the human storyteller mechanism projecting fantasies, suppositions, conjectures and mythos onto a gnat swarm of "stuff".
Science101

Thanks quietlyleaving for your encouraging words! I have been so busy working to make a living I haven't had time to start a new writing project, but the weekend is finally here! Abaddon, from what I can see, we both agree that the word "goal" and other similar ones do not seem to scientifically apply to evolution. The problem for me, is in describing what I have noticed in my computer models. No matter how I construct them, after studying what was going on, I found (for lack of better words) what could be considered a "goal" and natural selection "guides" the evolution towards that goal. Of course, I have the luxury of running the program over again so I can look back and although it never does the same thing twice, there is a predictable outcome. Same in nature, for example the mosquito. They have stayed the same for a very long time because they in a sense achieved the goal of a stealthy blood sucking flying insect. A radical change in body plan like giant easy to see or hear wings would not be beneficial. Terry, you described the problem when you said "We are trapped by language and freed by math.". I can program the algorithms, examine the runs to see what happened, but describing it is not easy. I guess I could say that there is a "predictable outcome" but even that could be debated by someone who does not see it that way. To answer your question 'How do you define "Creative"?' I would admit that it is here being used as somewhat of a religious metaphor to help answer the common question of "How was life created?" which one does not need to have a religious perspective to ask. The word "created" likewise can be used as a religious metaphor. I define "creative force" as a collection of well understood forces described in chemistry textbooks that were involved in the creation of life. If you can think of a better short phrase to describe what I am writing about then I will use that instead. But "creative force" was well thought out by a group effort. Trying to find something that works on both the science and the religious side is not easy. In fact, there is no scientific phrase that I know of that can replace it. Even the commonly used scientific word "abiogenesis" is a religious metaphor. Genesis is the first chapter of the Bible and it contains a creation story. But that doesn't stop scientists from using the word "abiogenesis".
Abaddon

Science101
Abaddon, from what I can see, we both agree that the word "goal" and other similar ones do not seem to scientifically apply to evolution.
Agreed.
The problem for me, is in describing what I have noticed in my computer models. No matter how I construct them, after studying what was going on, I found (for lack of better words) what could be considered a "goal" and natural selection "guides" the evolution towards that goal. Of course, I have the luxury of running the program over again so I can look back and although it never does the same thing twice, there is a predictable outcome.
Again, I feel this is due to what you put in the programs. If you'll excuse 25 year old BASIC programming;
10 Print "ho ho ho"
20 Goto 10
Has a goal I put in there.
Even with vastly more complex programs, if you put in rules that lead random letter strings to be 'evolved' into sentences, the program will do that, not make coffee.
Same in nature, for example the mosquito. They have stayed the same for a very long time because they in a sense achieved the goal of a stealthy blood sucking flying insect. A radical change in body plan like giant easy to see or hear wings would not be beneficial.
They achieved no goal. They achieved a point where there adaptation for the niche they occupy was such that there was no selection pressure leading to change in genotype that would lead to change of phenotype.
Apply selection pressure and;
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2540.1999.00412.x
http://college.georgetown.edu/research/nature/37901.html
http://media.newscientist.com/article/mg14019034.500-review-paperbacks--roy-herbert-considers-the-mosquitoevolution-and-dna-.html
So, a stable niche, not a goal.
... oh, thanks for this discussion, it prompted me to find a veritable treasure trove of documented speciation events with which to bug the next idiot Creationist that rattles my bars, and is thus far hugely enjoyable.
I define "creative force" as a collection of well understood forces described in chemistry textbooks that were involved in the creation of life. If you can think of a better short phrase to describe what I am writing about then I will use that instead. But "creative force" was well thought out by a group effort. Trying to find something that works on both the science and the religious side is not easy. In fact, there is no scientific phrase that I know of that can replace it.
You are taking a feature of "how it happens to be" and implying a motive in it by using "creative force". Lipids happen to create membranes because that's the way it is. Some speculate there are other iterations of reality (alternative Universes) where different rules apply; do they have 'uncreative forces'? As for a group effort... didn't the group consider asking scientists to use the term 'creative' with all the connotations this brings is as good an idea as fishnet parachutes?
I think the important question is why do you seek to see 'goals' in stable ecological niches amid 'creative forces' in the physical laws that apply in our Universe? The choice of word isn't what bothers me so much as the need to apply terms with all the need and appropriateness of applying bow-ties to pigs.
It is all a bit too anthropic to me; "Ooo, this hole in the ground fits so well there must be 'hole in The ground force" said the puddle.
Us being able to observe and comment on how well the physical constants in our Universe and the environment on this planet are suited to life as we know it is a result of the physical constants in our Universe and the environment on this planet being suited to life as we know it. It does not mean there is anything 'creative' about it, or that life could not arise on different planets with different environment or in Universe's with different physical constants.
Even the commonly used scientific word "abiogenesis" is a religious metaphor. Genesis is the first chapter of the Bible and it contains a creation story. But that doesn't stop scientists from using the word "abiogenesis".
Many terms in science come from Latin or Greek. Genesis comes from the Greek word G??es??, meaning "birth", "creation", "cause", "beginning", "source" or "origin" (source; Wiki). You seeing it as a religious metaphor is a result of (drum roll) the perspective you view it from. Viewed from another perspective it is an entirely appropriate use of a word from a dead language used by the scientific community for terms and classification.
I would be interested in you taking a step back and saying why flogging this not seemingly only dead but rather putrid horse is of such importance to you. Thus far you seem to be banging a square peg into a round hole.
And to what ends? Maybe there is a grand creative force, but you have no evidence for it. Yet that doesn't matter as maybe there is one anyway who just blew on "the dice" with such finesse stuff ended up like this.
Sometimes Science101, windmills are just windmills. and calling a windmill a giant (as per Don Quixote) is just like seeing creative forces in how things are.
And before some truculent idiot tries to make out otherwise, I don't think you're an idiot and are far removed from the normally ill-informed 'godidit' brigade who normally flood threads on evolution et. al.. Doesn't mean I agree with you, but that's not that important , you've started the most interesting thread of its ilk for ages.
Science101

It isn't what I put into the program that gives evolution a goal-like feature, I had to consider that when I wrote them. It's the evolution mechanism itself. Random mutation creates variation, while natural selection provides predictable direction (even if we are unable to tell what direction an organisms evolution is taking). The environment determines much of directionality. In one environment it might be best to become larger in size, while in another it's better to be smaller. What evolution is moving a species towards, would be evolution's goal. There is no guarantee that the goal can be reached, but there is still something the species is heading towards. In the case of the mosquito the goal becomes a limiting factor but a mass extinction of its easy prey would force evolution to take a new direction. The phrase "selection pressure" would work too. The problem with it, is that people would first have to understand how evolution works to know what it means. Have to consider the vocabulary of the audience or you only confuse them. In my opinion it is better to use words they already know then work from there, to compromise. That is why "creative force" ended up being the best of them all. People right away know what you are describing. Same as making a new word from Latin where two words already in use are combined to make a new one. It may be composed of words that are also used in religion, like "genesis", but that did not stop people before us from using them. I see no sense in trying to reinvent the wheel because a few people would rather use words that have no meaning at all. As far as "creative force" is concerned the evidence for it is our chemistry books. Only thing I did was give multiple forces found in nature a name that describes what they together can do. And as you ended up showing in the formation of the word "abiogenesis" from Latin, I did it like people before me did. The word genesis from Latin also means "creation" but that doesn't stop scientists from using it. And when I'm writing sermonish material it's important to use the proper vocabulary or it ends up as boring as a science textbooks to people who want something religiously meaningful. Maybe the best way for you to understand why I use words this way, is for you to try writing a science-sermon. I would love to read one that you wrote. Picture yourself the guest at a church or kingdom hall, there to give the believers an uplifting message about the miracle of science. Might also want to post it as a new topic to see how the religious audience reacts to it. I'm hoping you take me up on my challenge. And tomorrow is Sunday, it will be perfect timing. So go ahead brother Abaddon, you get to write the next sermon on this theme. Try to beat mine.
Abaddon

Science101
It isn't what I put into the program that gives evolution a goal-like feature,
Well, no, because your programs and evolution are two different things
I had to consider that when I wrote them. It's the evolution mechanism itself.
Random mutation creates variation,
Agreed
while natural selection provides predictable direction (even if we are unable to tell what direction an organisms evolution is taking)
This statement contradicts itself; how can natural selection provide 'predictable direction' if 'we are unable to tell what direction an organisms evolution is taking'.
The environment determines much of directionality.
Yes.
In one environment it might be best to become larger in size, while in another it's better to be smaller.
What evolution is moving a species towards, would be evolution's goal.
But it isn't moving towards anything as it doesn't know what it is evolving into. Thus my point that 'goals' are in the mind of the observer, not in the mechanism of evolution or in the mind of the evolving organism.
The phrase "selection pressure" would work too. The problem with it, is that people would first have to understand how evolution works to know what it means.
I have no problem with people having to study a bit to understand evolution; any school system where someone can leave school without knowing what 'selection pressure' is as bad as one where they leave without knowing what 'present continuous' is. And I can explain 'selection pressure' in three sentences;
When a scientist uses the words 'selection pressure', they mean the things in an environment that might give one animal of a species an advantage over another that meant it had more offspring. Imagine someone who keeps dog but only breeds the ones with a certain characteristic, say brown spots; obviously all the next generation will be descended from brown-spotted dogs, most of them will have brown spots, and only those with brown spots will be allowed to breed. The dog breeder is providing 'selection pressure' by only selecting ones with brown spots, just like in nature a certain colouration might result in an animal having more or less offspring and be also 'selection pressure'.
Have to consider the vocabulary of the audience or you only confuse them.
I always go for education not simplification.
In my opinion it is better to use words they already know then work from there, to compromise.
That is why "creative force" ended up being the best of them all. People right away know what you are describing.
Er, yes, and that's the problem; it implies there is a force that creates, and everyone knows what create means. And you can't prove a 'creative force' anymore than I can prove a 'tooth firt force'; all you are doing is misleadingly labeling a charcteristic of our Universe' physical constants. And as my example shows, a term like 'seletion pressure' is easy to explain in simple terms.
Same as making a new word from Latin where two words already in use are combined to make a new one. It may be composed of words that are also used in religion, like "genesis", but that did not stop people before us from using them. I see no sense in trying to reinvent the wheel because a few people would rather use words that have no meaning at all.
Now, I didn't suggest using word with no meaning, I suggested avoiding words with existing meanings that would cause confusion or misunderstanding. You argued 'creative force' was an okay term despite being steeped in religous meaning, as science uses terms like 'abiogenesis', which you thought derived from he Bible book.
But 'abiogensis' has an etmomolgy derived from Greek and means 'non biological origins', so your argument that 'creative force' was okay as other scientific words had religious origins does not stand.
As far as "creative force" is concerned the evidence for it is our chemistry books.
No, there is evidence for molecular self-assembly which happens because of a number of different "noncovalent interactions, such as hydrogen bonding, metal coordination, hydrophobic forces, van der Waals forces, pi-pi interactions, and/or electrostatic effects".
Only thing I did was give multiple forces found in nature a name that describes what they together can do.
But there is a term already; molecular self-assembly. This doen't carry with it any of the loaded conotations of the term you wish to use.
And as you ended up showing in the formation of the word "abiogenesis" from Latin, I did it like people before me did.
Greek actually, and 'creative force' implies things that 'molecular self-assembly' does not.
And when I'm writing sermonish material it's important to use the proper vocabulary or it ends up as boring as a science textbooks to people who want something religiously meaningful.
Well, as I said earlier, this seems to confirm you are trying to streach 'attractive presuppostions round facts that don't fit them very well'.
What makes you think science is or should be 'religiously meaningful'?
Maybe the best way for you to understand why I use words this way, is for you to try writing a science-sermon. I would love to read one that you wrote. Picture yourself the guest at a church or kingdom hall, there to give the believers an uplifting message about the miracle of science. Might also want to post it as a new topic to see how the religious audience reacts to it.

I'm hoping you take me up on my challenge. And tomorrow is Sunday, it will be perfect timing. So go ahead brother Abaddon, you get to write the next sermon on this theme. Try to beat mine.
Well I don't think science needs to be delivered in the style of a sermon, but this is what I'd say to a group of believers;
Many of you here today will have wondered over the debate between scientists, the vast majority of which feel evolution explains why life on this planet is the way it is, and those who feel that evolution does not explain everything.
Some people insist that the literal word of Genesis or some other Holy Book is the accurate truth as regards our origins. Others insist that it is allegorical. Others that it is just a snap-shot of what mankind's knowledge of our origins was like at one point in time.
We can look around us and, whatever we believe, agree that we live in a majestically beautiful Universe. From far distant reaches of the galaxy to under the rocks in the garden outside, we see order and structure, be it of clouds of dust and gas into stars and galaxies, or of simple chemicals into organic life.
Just as today we might think that it isn't important to have tassles around our clothes, or that it is okay for men to shave, or that it is not right to make prisoners of war slaves, or that we do not need to circumsize our boy children, we could well feel that modern science has a better idea about the time scales of the Universe and the development of life on this planet than bronze-age goatherds.
Ignoring the letter of an ancient book doesn't mean we disregard or disrespect the spirit of it.
At the end of the day I feel it doesn't matter how the Universe came about. It is here, and it is good. We can be pretty sure that men of faith were sincere, but let us not swallow down the camel of error by assuming they were always right when the evidence of the world around us shows us the contrary is true.
Belief in something greater than ourselves doesn't require a theory to back it up, nor does it require denying facts so well established that to deny them is unreasonable. In fact, if we need to prove our beliefs by denying demonstrable facts, what does that say about our faith?
Reflection on the Universe around us reveals wonders; the strength of bonds holding elements together means we have the variety of elements required to support life as we see it around us as well as allowing the life-cycle of stars that shine in the sky above us. Were it different then we would not be here to see it, nor have the light to see it by.
The way that various forces between atoms and molecules act means that certain chemicals have structures that make the cell possible, the way that an organsim in its natural environment is as perfectly suited to its environment as glove is to a hand - the whole Universe seems to focus on the production of life, at least as far as our own world shows us. From bacteria far underground in cracks in rocks to life living around volcanic vents deep under the sea where light never shines.
This is a wonder whether by the hand of 'god', however you concieve it, or not, especially as that 'god' seems to be so subtle and skilled this came about merely through the way it 'threw the dice'. Not a god that makes things like a potter or a carpenter as our ancestors may have been able to understand, but one who sets it all going so perfectly what it wills comes to be as a result of the rules of the game.
And if this is just chance, and the only way we happen to be able to appreciate the wonder of it all is the fortuitous develpment of sentience, is that any less miraculous? Does it make life any less precious?
There are enough divisions between humans without us creating more. The only reason we have to cling to a literal interpretation of an ancient book is if by doing so we give ourselves a security blanket against a changing and sometimes uncertain world, to make it possible to hold ourselves above others on trifling details that have little or nothing to do with whether we are a good "neighbour".
And if we need to use words on a page to do that, where does faith fit in exactly? Surely we need to read our hearts and use our minds rather than turn to the correct page. Which is better, to live a good life because we want to or because there is a rule on a page?
Religion has always sought to explain the world around us, but now science gives us a better tool to do that. To cling to old beliefs facts show to be simply wrong is like believing Thor makes thunder just because it says so in some Holy Book. Today religious belief seems to be a better tool for some to make sense of the world within them; others might not feel the need, might have an internal world where they do not need a faith to make sense of it all; this does not make either condition of greater worth than the other.
What people of either disposition can do is be united in their wonder at the world around them and at being able to wonder at the world around them.
Science101

I have to say that your sermon was excellent! I'm not sure if it helped give anyone something to believe in, but I liked it! Thanks for writng the piece.
while natural selection provides predictable direction (even if we are unable to tell what direction an organisms evolution is taking)
This statement contradicts itself; how can natural selection provide 'predictable direction' if 'we are unable to tell what direction an organisms evolution is taking'.
It would be predictable if we knew how to study it in that level of detail. Or in other words, just because someone does not know where a road is going, does not mean that it's impossible for someone else to predict where it ends.
In one environment it might be best to become larger in size, while in another it's better to be smaller.
What evolution is moving a species towards, would be evolution's goal.
But it isn't moving towards anything as it doesn't know what it is evolving into. Thus my point that 'goals' are in the mind of the observer, not in the mechanism of evolution or in the mind of the evolving organism.
I'm not sure if I can agree. The colorful tail of the peacock does exist in the mind of the females. They have a goal when selecting a mate that in a sense makes their evolution predictable.
I have no problem with people having to study a bit to understand evolution; any school system where someone can leave school without knowing what 'selection pressure' is as bad as one where they leave without knowing what 'present continuous' is. And I can explain 'selection pressure' in three sentences;
Our schools are not doing a very good job of teaching evolution. Are even schools, home schools, and universities, that only teach Creationism. The term "present continuous" is not even explained in any I know of.
I always go for education not simplification.
Welcome to America! Around here it's becoming a miracle to convince people that we were not created by a big hand in the sky that points finger and a new species is created. Hope you heard about Ben Stein's new movie that trashes science while making ID valid science.
I wish I had the luxury of always communicating on an educated level. It's not possible with people who only think that evolution is evil.
In my opinion it is better to use words they already know then work from there, to compromise.
That is why "creative force" ended up being the best of them all. People right away know what you are describing.
Er, yes, and that's the problem; it implies there is a force that creates, and everyone knows what create means. And you can't prove a 'creative force' anymore than I can prove a 'tooth firt force'; all you are doing is misleadingly labeling a charcteristic of our Universe' physical constants. And as my example shows, a term like 'seletion pressure' is easy to explain in simple terms.
Er, yes, and that's the problem; it implies there is a force that creates, and everyone knows what create means. And you can't prove a 'creative force' anymore than I can prove a 'tooth firt force'; all you are doing is misleadingly labeling a charcteristic of our Universe' physical constants. And as my example shows, a term like 'seletion pressure' is easy to explain in simple terms.
Yes, everyone knows what creates means. And simply google "moleculay self-assembly" and the related links and you'll find that it is very real. No tooth fairy required.
Same as making a new word from Latin where two words already in use are combined to make a new one. It may be composed of words that are also used in religion, like "genesis", but that did not stop people before us from using them. I see no sense in trying to reinvent the wheel because a few people would rather use words that have no meaning at all.
Now, I didn't suggest using word with no meaning, I suggested avoiding words with existing meanings that would cause confusion or misunderstanding. You argued 'creative force' was an okay term despite being steeped in religous meaning, as science uses terms like 'abiogenesis', which you thought derived from he Bible book.
I pointed out that the word contains "genesis" which is a biblical word "steeped in religious meaning". But that does not stop scientists from using it.
As far as "creative force" is concerned the evidence for it is our chemistry books.
No, there is evidence for molecular self-assembly which happens because of a number of different "noncovalent interactions, such as hydrogen bonding, metal coordination, hydrophobic forces, van der Waals forces, pi-pi interactions, and/or electrostatic effects".
"Creative force" is still a better term than "molecular self-assembly" when writing sermon type material for highly religious people so I still plan to use both. Scientific words that have no meaning to them causes the instant closing of their mind, which only wastes both of our time. I'm willing to compromise, which is why I'm making progress in an area that scientists primarily gave up on.
Only thing I did was give multiple forces found in nature a name that describes what they together can do.
But there is a term already; molecular self-assembly. This doen't carry with it any of the loaded conotations of the term you wish to use.
Yes. And that's the problem. There are some who have to have it that way or they don't want any of your science.
And as you ended up showing in the formation of the word "abiogenesis" from Latin, I did it like people before me did.
Greek actually, and 'creative force' implies things that 'molecular self-assembly' does not.
The rest gets us into origin of life science, or abioGENESIS, which is an outcome of this self-assembly. So now there are two religiously charged words that can be used to describe "creation". I could use either, and be equally religiously charged. Only difference is that you think one is OK because it has already been adopted by science, and the other is loved by the religious because it has instant meaning but has not yet been adopted by science.
What makes you think science is or should be 'religiously meaningful'?
The current debate makes it necessary. That's what it's about. I'm giving them what they want without resorting to supernatural explanations.
Abaddon

Science101
I have to say that your sermon was excellent! I'm not sure if it helped give anyone something to believe in, but I liked it! Thanks for writng the piece.
It was fun to write; the reason it didn't give anyone anything to believe in was *chortle* me using my creative force. Making someone believe in something was not my *wink*goal.
It would be predictable if we knew how to study it in that level of detail. Or in other words, just because someone does not know where a road is going, does not mean that it's impossible for someone else to predict where it ends.
Outside of controlled environments and populations it would seem the prediction of evolution would be subject to the same limitations as predicting weather. Because of the high number of variables anything beyond short range is inaccurate. And just because the weatherman says it'll rain Tuesday doesn't mean it is the weather's goal to rain Tuesday.
I'm not sure if I can agree. The colorful tail of the peacock does exist in the mind of the females. They have a goal when selecting a mate that in a sense makes their evolution predictable.
Their goal is not causing evolution to make large tails. They do not have that in mind. They don't have anything in mind. They have instincts which make them more likely to submit to the mating displays of the most magnificently endowed male (and human's ain't so different, LOL); that is as far as it goes.
Our schools are not doing a very good job of teaching evolution. Are even schools, home schools, and universities, that only teach Creationism.
In the USA this is a major issue. I live in the Netherlands, although I am English. Creationism does not have 1/10th of the support it has in the USA, and any University that taught Creationism would be denied accreditation, any school would have to be private, and the educational standards you must have yourself in order to home school are higher; it's not viewed as a parents right to educate their child as they wish but a child's right to be educated decently.
The term "present continuous" is not even explained in any I know of.
It's English grammar; "I am writing to you" is a use of the present continuous.
Yes, everyone knows what creates means. And simply google "moleculay self-assembly" and the related links and you'll find that it is very real. No tooth fairy required.
You are treating 'creative force' and 'molecular self-assembly' as synonymous. They are not. Just ignoring my point that 'creative force' carries implications 'molecular self-assembly' does not, and that a new term isn't needed doesn't work.
Likewise, capitalising GENESIS in abiogenesis doesn't make the GENESIS bit suddenly refer to the Bible; the two instances (following convention for coining scientific terms and using Greek or Latin and using a modern English word replete with religious connotations when a neutral term already exists) are not comparable.
And to say subject A should become meaningful to belief structure B just because there is a debate about subject A and belief B is putting the horse before the cart. If the believers in the Invisible Pink Unicorn start a debate about how their beliefs intersect with scientific understanding, should science become meaningful to believers in the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
If modern Christianity requires science to become meaningful to it, what of Islam, Hinduism, Wicca, Scientology, Mormonism, etc? Science is meaningful in the real world. It doesn;t have to be meaningful in a church. Church goers just have to learn science is a good guide for how the physical world works even if the bronze-age goatherd (or 19th Century American con artist, or 20th Century Science-fiction writer) of their choice contradicts it.
The aim of my 'sermon' was to show acceptance of modern scientific fact is possible even if the source text of your religion is incompatible with modern science as regards human origins. To show modern scientific fact and ancient religious traditions can co-exist is far more important for me than trying to dumb down science so it's accepted by people who had poor educations.
Terry

I define "creative force" as a collection of well understood forces described in chemistry textbooks that were involved in the creation of life. If you can think of a better short phrase to describe what I am writing about then I will use that instead. But "creative force" was well thought out by a group effort. Trying to find something that works on both the science and the religious side is not easy. In fact, there is no scientific phrase that I know of that can replace it.
I see the word "create" as a premise underlying a point of view or context which stems from a kind of ideology.
If you drop an egg and it goes "splat" you have changed it. Is that creative? If the splat is in a frying pan and breakfast is your goal it might well be. Otherwise, it is a mess.
In other words, we tend to view things in terms of usefulness to us at a particular moment.
There is no doubt that the constituency of our material and energetic world (be that atoms, molecules, etc.) is active in attracting and repelling willy-nilly. There is often a coalesence. The results of all this bouncing about is either constructive or destructive from a "certain point of view". If that result is an "us" who values our "self" we are apt to view the coalescing which produced us as "creative".
No matter how unlikely an event; only possible things happen.
All the interplay of reactions, attractions, repulsions and such which did not produce life also failed to produce a consciousness which values life. Only consciousness finds the term "creative" of any interest whatsoever.
So, it is fair to say that consciousness has some stake in the outcome of evaluations involving the admixture of forces. Creating or destroying is of no interest to chaos itself.

Scientific Prophecy - Creative Force - Opinion?

Share this