Forums | MacLife

Are you asserting that science proclaims evolution has "no purpose?"

I guess I'm not understanding why you would exclude 'what the theory itself entails.'

What about "the heart" or "photosynthesis?"  I guess I'm just not going to get it (nor do I see how gravity and evolution are comparable here).  Scientific study has informed us of the "purpose" for many things, as best as I can tell.

Purpose can equate to value or function rather than just reason, objective, or motivation.

ScifiterX wrote:

Purpose can equate to value or function rather than just reason, objective, or motivation.

Yeah, but from the beginning I have been speaking of purpose in the same vein as intentionality and will etc, as antonym to accidental, and I have been explicit in explaining the way I am using the word. Function, sure, science can explain that, like I said, it can provide a material account, but not purpose in the sense of intention etc.

The sun is, by current estimation, an inanimate object. It has no "purpose". It just is. You're also assuming that we too must have some sort of purpose. I find the idea that we were created as playthings to amuse some higher power doesn't really give me any sense of purpose. But this does go into philosophy rather than science. Science doesn't attempt to bring any emotional meaning to existence - though there certainly are evolutionary advantages to some of our more base emotions. Science can't really explain thought or sentience.

But once again it's looking for a way to explain something. You have to become comfortable with the mystery. People don't like admitting that they don't know, so they believe in something, even though there's no evidence. The idea of death, of consciousness ceasing at the moment of death is frightening for many people. The idea of an afterlife becomes much more attractive.

Creationism, strict creationism, defies logic and reason. There simply isn't a way for life to exist without the sun. There's no way the flood could have happened. Not without believing in magical beings who enable it. It would be like people two thousand years from now reading Harry Potter and believing he existed and performed miracles.

robco wrote:

The sun is, by current estimation, an inanimate object. It has no "purpose". It just is.

Yep.

You're also assuming that we too must have some sort of purpose.

No, this twist today all was about whether its fair to talk of everyone who feels some need to resist science as being motivated just by dogma, and I have kinda been playing devil's advocate. I mean, I have my own ideas about meaning and that sort of thing, and I do believe in purpose, but I'm not about to argue them in an online forum about evolution.

I find the idea that we were created as playthings to amuse some higher power doesn't really give me any sense of purpose.

I hope you arent implying thats what I think purpose is...

But this does go into philosophy rather than science. Science doesn't attempt to bring any emotional meaning to existence - though there certainly are evolutionary advantages to some of our more base emotions. Science can't really explain thought or sentience.

Thats basically what I have been saying here.

But once again it's looking for a way to explain something. You have to become comfortable with the mystery.

Ha! Do tell! I feel exactly the same way myself.

People don't like admitting that they don't know, so they believe in something, even though there's no evidence. The idea of death, of consciousness ceasing at the moment of death is frightening for many people. The idea of an afterlife becomes much more attractive.

Again, I sure hope you dont think you are describing my own beliefs or psychology.

Creationism, strict creationism, defies logic and reason.

On the other hand, some would say naturalism defies logic and reason, or at least deals it a circular enough blow so as to be wholly undercut.

There simply isn't a way for life to exist without the sun.

Are you really so sure?

There's no way the flood could have happened. Not without believing in magical beings who enable it.

Isnt that kinda the way it works?

It would be like people two thousand years from now reading Harry Potter and believing he existed and performed miracles.

Not really.

Ok with the Sun. It's purpose (value/function) is heat/energy source and space/time anchor. Assuming a guiding force for a second, I'm guessing that is the intended function. However even if that function is a consequence of its existence, it is still important to the existence of life.

Last edited by ScifiterX (2008-07-09 9:54 pm)

Metacell wrote:

The purpose of the sun is to provide structure to all the loose matter floating about the cosmos, turning it into a matter generator until its energy production can no longer support its mass, at which point it produces a massive shock wave of particles that induce coagulation of the dust clouds they pass through, eventually to create one of life's little miracles...a brand new star.

Sadly, many stars never graduate from the "Red Dwarf" level.  But stars who are given an abundant nutritional cluster of heavy elements to start with in their formative years may even one day be immortalized as a Quasar.  These bastards generally get to spray their "stuff" all over the cosmos, sometimes seeding the dust of galaxies who live in different sectors.

Those well nourished bastards!

What are the sunspots, zits?

resedit wrote:

But I do think there is enough to completely debunk the notion of a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Perhaps - though there is not enough to say that all life on earth evolved from single celled organisms that magically spontaneously generated.

It's not magical. But it's not biology either.

Before evolution, there was no "Biology." There was Zoology, and Botany, and Genetics, and Embryology. There was and Ecology, and Anatomy and Paleontology,and Systematics.  People may have referred to the Biological sciences, but persons in on biological field had no way of relating their insights to the problems in another biological field. Evolution provided a basis for common understanding. (I would have said that it provides a basis for interdisciplinary collaboration, but then, so does postmodernism).

The origin of life problem concerns systems that developed before a genetic mechanism. It's a playground for biochemists, and not for biologists in general. If you want to read more about it, you might try

Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins (Hazen 2005).

Pragmatists claim that scientific theories are adopted not because they are the Truth, the Light, and the Way, but because those theoretical frameworks are useful for designing interesting experiments. Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, but it doesn't have to. It merely has to provide a theoretical basis for scientific exploration. And on that count, it's rather more successful than Natural Theology.

A complex system is beyond definition and irreducible complexity can't be defined any further!