Re: definition of science [a search for knowledge]

From: Edward Babinski <ebabinski2002@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon Apr 25 2005 - 22:38:22 EDT

--- Keith Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu> wrote:
> Here is one version of my definition:
> Science is the human endeavor to understand how the
> physical universe
> works by constructing testable cause-and-effect
> natural explanations of
> events and processes based on observations of the
> physical world.

-----------

ED: How about this?

Philosophy and theology are a search for *truth*

Science is a search for knowledge.

Invoking miracles to explain how we get from "this to
that," adds nothing to human knowledge. Science is an
attempt to build on the knowledge we have, to
hypothesize and discover connections between things we
know. Miracles have no connection to one another
except in the supernatural mind of God. They have no
explanatory value, they cannot be compared one to
another, since each miracle is unique and uniquely
inexplicable.

If anyone wishes to believe that God kept dipping his
finger in the genetic brew between various species and
their common ancestors, that is their prerogative to
believe that's what God did. Neither is it up to
science to prove a universal negative regarding any
and all miracles.

But speaking of the search for knowledge, scientific
knowledge, what we DO know is that the evidence points
to, say, man and chimpanzee sharing a common ancestor
approximately five million years ago. The genetic
evidence is quite plain on that matter, for instance
concerning the shared lack of a gene to produce
vitamin C and shared retroviral genes in homologous
DNA locations in both human beings and chimpanzees. I
would add to that the evidence of chromosomal fusion
that can be seen in the human chromosome no.2 that
certainly has left behind marks inside the chromosome
itself of it being a fusion of two chromosomes (that
are still separate in the chimpanzee lineage).

We ALSO presently know of over a hundred species of
primitive ape, all of whose arm to leg ratios were
relatively shorter than those of modern day apes, so
the extinct hominid species that lead in the general
direction of humanity retained some of the basic
characteristics of the primitive apes.

We ALSO know that all those species of primitive apes
became extinct, as did all the species of hominids
leading up to man, and even some varieties of human
being became extinct as well, like the Neanderthal,
leaving only homo sapiens sapiens.

In summation it seems to me that those who deny that
knowledge of common ancestry exists must face up to
the fact of shared retroviral and retrobacterial DNA
in apes and humans. The Designer's "plan" also
includes that of ALL his "designed" primitive ape
species, including ALL of his hominid species and even
a sub-species of man (Neanderthal), ALL except the one
lineage leading to modern man, had to become extinct.

The facts certainly seem to imply that we are dealing
with either a "Divine Tinkerer," or neo-Darwinism. And
in the end, just how far apart is the "Divine
Tinkerer" hypothesis from that of neo-Darwinism, and
so what exactly is the "fuss" about, i.e., concerning
the difference between "Intelligent Design" and a
"neo-Darwinistic evolutionary viewpoint?" There are
fine-tuner Christians who see no "fuss" concerning the
difference.

In fact, fine-tuners think it would provide greater
proof of "Design" not less, if life were found
elsewhere in the cosmos, on other planets. In other
words, if evolution was a cosmic phenomena, rather
than say, limited to one tiny planet in the entire
cosmos, then that would demonstrate a form of internal
design on a cosmic scale.

The view of fine-tuners is that any God who can design
a cosmos that makes people out of billion year old
carbon is more of a marvel than a God who has to keep
pulling rabbits out of his hat and adjusting things.
(Reminds me of the way folks, including Newton, used
to invoke God as a cosmic repair man who they believed
stepped in to set right any minor perturbations in the
courses of planets and stars. But today nobody invokes
God to do such a thing, because after all, if a Divine
Watchmaker has to continue stepping back into the room
to reset the hands of his divine clock to make it read
the correct time, then just how great a clock did he
design?)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Tue Apr 26 22:18:17 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 26 2005 - 22:18:21 EDT