RE: [asa] The Ultimate Question for Science (was: Article (in our local paper) on evolution mentions Collins (something from nothing or eternal energy?))

From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Date: Mon Mar 09 2009 - 17:36:08 EDT

I'm not sure if others ever talked about this, but I think I just came up with the ultimate question for science:

Where did it all start? There are two options:

1. Matter and/or energy are eternal (no start; always existed).
2. The first matter and/or energy came from nothing.

Both seem to violate scientific thinking. Comments? Are there any other options (I don't see any). Maybe another option will be the discovery of another "attribute" of nature from which energy can sprout. That may explain why Einstein's theory breaks-down at the planck level, and the new thing can explain the sub-atomic world. It's a game of "how low can you go." Maybe there's no end to how low or high you can go (the ultimate in height is multi-verses).

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 9:28 AM
To: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] Article (in our local paper) on evolution mentions Collins (something from nothing or eternal energy?)

"Something came from nothing,"

That sounds unscientific. I think they should say it is rather eternal- with multi-verses sprouting up. I think eternal energy is more likely than something coming from nothing. Wow- no answers there... both seem unscientific...

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Wallace
Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 7:07 AM
To: ASA
Subject: [asa] Article (in our local paper) on evolution mentions Collins

Collins was quoted in a multi page article on evolution.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Technology/debate/1364179/story.html

"Francis Collins summed up the importance of this in a TV interview.
(Collins was head of the Human Genome Project and was director of one of
the U.S. National Institutes of Health. He is also a fundamentalist
Christian who sees no conflict in this.) "Yes, evolution by descent from
a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt
about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the
strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things ..."

"I take the view that God, in His wisdom, used evolution as His creative
scheme. I don't see why that's such a bad idea. That's pretty amazingly
creative on His part."

Another good line:

"We don't regard the Origin of Species as a holy book, or The Descent of
Man. So what he said, we don't care about it."

However, a second article goes on to undo any good done by the previous one.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Life/Growing+Darwin/1363731/story.html

"To be committed to science is to be committed to the idea that there is
no original design or purpose in the universe. What pushed God from the
picture once and for all is the realization that science is a
progressive endeavor that can in principle never come to an end:
Something came from nothing, the more complex came from the less
complex, and the appearance of design or intent is just that -- appearance."

It almost seems people such as the author have a secret wish to keep
evolution from being accepted. Why do they always have to push their
philosophical naturalism?

Dave W

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Mar 9 17:37:16 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 09 2009 - 17:37:16 EDT