Posts by Science101

29

Scientific Prophecy - Creative Force - Opinion?

by Science101 in

jw
friends

i wrote something that i'm certain jehovah's witnesses (and x too) would like and wanted to find out what everyone thinks about it.

looks like this is the almost the only place, but right place.. .

one of the last things we might consider to be divinely inspired is something scientific.

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.

29

Scientific Prophecy - Creative Force - Opinion?

by Science101 in

jw
friends

i wrote something that i'm certain jehovah's witnesses (and x too) would like and wanted to find out what everyone thinks about it.

looks like this is the almost the only place, but right place.. .

one of the last things we might consider to be divinely inspired is something scientific.

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.

29

Scientific Prophecy - Creative Force - Opinion?

by Science101 in

jw
friends

i wrote something that i'm certain jehovah's witnesses (and x too) would like and wanted to find out what everyone thinks about it.

looks like this is the almost the only place, but right place.. .

one of the last things we might consider to be divinely inspired is something scientific.

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".

29

Scientific Prophecy - Creative Force - Opinion?

by Science101 in

jw
friends

i wrote something that i'm certain jehovah's witnesses (and x too) would like and wanted to find out what everyone thinks about it.

looks like this is the almost the only place, but right place.. .

one of the last things we might consider to be divinely inspired is something scientific.

Science101

Paralipomenon, you can probably tell that I cheated on learning how to spell your name and cut-pasted it into the message! This is the first forum I have been in that retains html formatting. Interesting.

29

Scientific Prophecy - Creative Force - Opinion?

by Science101 in

jw
friends

i wrote something that i'm certain jehovah's witnesses (and x too) would like and wanted to find out what everyone thinks about it.

looks like this is the almost the only place, but right place.. .

one of the last things we might consider to be divinely inspired is something scientific.

Science101

Paralipomenon, I feel the same way you do about the search for an entity that can be called "God". Have to be at least as skeptical as one is a believer or the search ends with the first excuse to stop looking. And Einstein was one complicated person to understand. Seems that religion enhanced his search for answers through science. Is more common than people realize. Even scientists sometimes seem to mot realize how religiously they search for truth. And Deputy Dog, I promise to be careful. So far Abaddon and I are getting along very well. I think that they are a lot like me. But I'm primarily self-taught in college level science I'm not connected to "academia" so I lack what I guess we could call it's indoctrination so I'm more free to challenge the textbook ways of seeing things. Still though, it seems Abaddon has an open mind. Good scientists are normally very precise in choice of words, and I'm that way too. Abaddon, I fully agree that the exact meaning of words is important in science. I would even say it's vital. But since I have heard evolution being called "undirected", "unguided" and with no "goal" the same thing applies the other way too. We will end up arguing semantics, but that's kinda necessary for us to do. In the case of the word "goal" we're kinda stuck reconciling it due it having been used on the science side. Would need proof that there is no goal anywhere in evolution to claim there is no goal at all. I also wrote a program that uses the evolution algorithm to evolve sentences and it worked great. I discovered that there was a goal, to write sentences. http://www.evolutionisdead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5799&sid=43b361bd4e5e9171aa606d82b0b54eca#5799 In another program the evolution algorithm was used to generate intelligence needed for a robot-like entity that resembles an insect, to navigate it's environment to find food. When first started it does not know how to move, what its sensors do, but soon learns how to use them. In this case the goal becomes learning how to navigate the environment, and feed, before starving. http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin//ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001464;p= I still need to create new webpages for the programs, but hopefully where they are right now will be good enough. And I still didn't register my compiler so it might give a warning that it's not if you want to run the programs without a compiler, but it's not like I'm hiding which is what that was meant to combat. I'm expected to pay for some service to verify that I exist. Wish I could afford such luxuries. My point here is that in response to claims that evolution has no goal, I probably have more evidence that there is a goal, and of course it then turns into another educational debate! But at least in this case it's simply over the use of words, as opposed to distortion of many facts. So we can argue while still sharing the same, goal...

108

Hello everyone, first post.

by Frjprice in

jw
friends

hello, i just wanted to introduce myself to everyone here - as i will be posting here.. i grew up a jw and pioneered, was a ministerial servant, ect, i was in the organization for 17 years.

i left and naturally my family did as they were told and cut off all communication with me.

this left a horrible taste in my mouth for not just jw's, but any religion for that matter.

Science101

Wow! Welcome to the forum Fr. Joseph Price!! I'm kinda new to this one but have plenty of experience with others. In my opinion this is one of the best for a good mix of people. I'm into reconciling science and religion. Have a short bio and a science-sermon kind of thing posted here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/142830/1.ashx Am honored you chose to join the forum. Let me know if you need help with the phobias produced by Creationism related indoctrination. Gary

9

name that religion!

by tula in

jw
friends

which religion does this?.

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/14203532/detail.html.

maiden, n.c. -- a bargain shopper made a gruesome discovery after going to an auction in maiden.

Science101

Which religion? You must mean like keeping body parts of saints or even a whole corpse enshrined in a church?

29

Scientific Prophecy - Creative Force - Opinion?

by Science101 in

jw
friends

i wrote something that i'm certain jehovah's witnesses (and x too) would like and wanted to find out what everyone thinks about it.

looks like this is the almost the only place, but right place.. .

one of the last things we might consider to be divinely inspired is something scientific.

Science101

Excellent points Abaddon! Looks like my next writing project will have to help clarify the "goal" and "guided" part. In my opinion the words and their opposites are somewhat ambiguous on both sides of the debate. One way to avoid it is to not use them at all in a definition of evolution. But that's not easy when one side believes that something is somehow directing, guiding, sets goals, etc.. The word you recommended "momentum" sounds good. One way the word "goal" might be used is like in your example of the Irish Elk. The females loved big antlers so their goal in selecting a mate was to find a male with giant ones. That goal, present in the mind of the elk, in turn added a goal to their evolution. But of course evolution itself does not set a goal, preferences of the evolving organisms add that to the process. I think we could debate this one for a long time. But it would be interesting to see what happens when there is finally agreement on both sides, if that is possible. That "Teilhard and the noosphere" stuff is excellent! We sure have a lot in common. That's the first time I read much about him. Here's a link in case anyone else wants to check it out. http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/mar/cunning.html On the meaning of life, it seems that what gives a person's life meaning, is different. Some need to play sports while others like to read and for me it's science. And what gives life meaning changes as we get older. When young it's bonding with a mate. Then family often enters into the equation. It would be nice to find what it is that is at the core, but my thoughts on that will have to wait until I have time to write it all down. But one example would be "love". Might not always end up a good experience, but it can add meaning to our lives, I guess. And I can't forget the Dover trial. I was networking with the folks on the science side in the Kansas controversy so of course when Behe was cornered by the astrology parallel, it was big news. From reading the transcript he tried to downplay it by being more specific about what he meant, but of course it was still the wrong answer. You are right, I don't try to defend ID. But there is someone I was talking to who was "on their side" in Kansas that I do admire, namely Kathy Martin. She's a retired science teacher and evolution changed so much she did have valid questions she wanted presented at the hearing. The boycott by scientists kinda left her no choice but to make sure there was a debate and giving the Discovery Institute some of what they wanted sure worked! In my opinion she has a much more open mind than is normally given credit for, even later went on the record saying that ID didn't have any science yet. In the end it still went OK, their school standards will be very scientific, might even become some of the best in the nation as a result of it. If I lived in Kansas and in her district then I would vote to reelect her. She knows how to get scientists off their butts to explain science to the people who need to know!

29

Scientific Prophecy - Creative Force - Opinion?

by Science101 in

jw
friends

i wrote something that i'm certain jehovah's witnesses (and x too) would like and wanted to find out what everyone thinks about it.

looks like this is the almost the only place, but right place.. .

one of the last things we might consider to be divinely inspired is something scientific.

Science101

I know what you are saying. It's like a discussion I had recently about answering the question of the meaning of life. The answer to that is something that can never be completely agreed on, but that is a good thing, because the search for an answer is the most invigorating part.

29

Scientific Prophecy - Creative Force - Opinion?

by Science101 in

jw
friends

i wrote something that i'm certain jehovah's witnesses (and x too) would like and wanted to find out what everyone thinks about it.

looks like this is the almost the only place, but right place.. .

one of the last things we might consider to be divinely inspired is something scientific.

Science101

Yes Satanus, the why's are sometimes buried under layers of doctrine. But maybe we can dig some up. I usually focus on the "how?" but "why?" is a big question. If you (or anyone) has anything that might work here then please mention it. I'm still searching too.