my current view on evolution and emergent behavior

my current view on evolution and emergent behavior

in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
ruled out evolution

this is due to the indeterminate nature of free will, and the determinate
nature of biology
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

an indeterminate system cannot result from a determinate one
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29

clearly animals like us are not biological robots

if the soul is not a product of evolution, can we say that other things
are, like the body, or perhaps plants that have no consciousness, free
will, mind or soul and are simply animated like biological robots

we observe the details that COULD lead up to evolution, yet evolution
happens over a long time span and has NEVER been observed as a WHOLE

our bodies and plants with respect to their environment seem to be a fit
pair, leading one to believe that perhaps irreducible complexity
arguments are on track

I believe reality is a dream of God's and he and us are all players in
the dream

there is a disconnect in material reality that leads up to this

the mind does not communicate consciously with the central nervous system
to exert will over the body, should we believe in a mysterious
subconscious that we all collectively repress, or is the better answer
that this is a true hole and disconnect in material reality intended for
us to realize the disconnect and realize the illusory nature of materiall
reality

my thinking is that a dream or plan of God's would be evolutionary in
terms of the progress of the dream, biological evolution might be a part
of his plan, but if we note such intervention in some areas, noted above,
we must consider the possibility of intervention in other areas, like
biological development

--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org

Re: my current view on evolution and emergent behavior

Dale Moron Kelly:

> in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
> ruled out evolution

In terms of sentience and education, we have ruled out yours.

--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."

My personal judgment of monotheism: http :// www .carcosa.de/nojebus

Re: my current view on evolution and emergent behavior

On Apr 9, 4:16 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
> ruled out evolution
>
> this is due to the indeterminate nature of free will, and the determinate
> nature of biology http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free will
>
> an indeterminate system cannot result from a determinate one http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism %28philosophy of mind%29
>
> clearly animals like us are not biological robots
>
> if the soul is not a product of evolution, can we say that other things
> are, like the body, or perhaps plants that have no consciousness, free
> will, mind or soul and are simply animated like biological robots
>
> we observe the details that COULD lead up to evolution, yet evolution
> happens over a long time span and has NEVER been observed as a WHOLE
>
> our bodies and plants with respect to their environment seem to be a fit
> pair, leading one to believe that perhaps irreducible complexity
> arguments are on track
>
> I believe reality is a dream of God's and he and us are all players in
> the dream
>
> there is a disconnect in material reality that leads up to this
>
> the mind does not communicate consciously with the central nervous system
> to exert will over the body, should we believe in a mysterious
> subconscious that we all collectively repress, or is the better answer
> that this is a true hole and disconnect in material reality intended for
> us to realize the disconnect and realize the illusory nature of materiall
> reality
>
> my thinking is that a dream or plan of God's would be evolutionary in
> terms of the progress of the dream, biological evolution might be a part
> of his plan, but if we note such intervention in some areas, noted above,
> we must consider the possibility of intervention in other areas, like
> biological development
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org

Brain-twisted Kelly,

Why is it so difficult to imagine our NATURE as your god.......?
Your imagination of a god is what....? A supernatural being ....define
pls...
Your god can create any thing........then what did he need from
you...?
Your prayers.....? So he need you to carry balls......right?
If he need for his creation to carry balls, then it is obvious all of
you are just without brains and have only mechanical means to
carry.....right?

So, that's what you all are.......

Yap

Re: my current view on evolution and emergent behavior


"Dale Kelly" <dale.kelly@comcast,net > skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.04.09.08.17.19@comcast,net ...
> in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
> ruled out evolution

You do not make sense, because you are just exposing your ingnorant,
underdeveloped mind.

It is a fact that people who have devoted their lives to serious study of
the subjects that you are ranting about, depend en evolutionary theory to
make sense of their observations. You are, however, grossly ignorant about
science and therefore waht you say is pure BS of no value whatsoever. Why
don't you study the subjects you want to discuss. But wait a minute, you do
not want to discuss, you have found your holy grail and just want the rest
of us to accept your weird theories. But why should we - do you think we are
going to believe ant\ything you say because that is the way you think? You
may rule otu whateber you want, I rule you you.

[snip]




--
> Dale
> http :// www .vedantasite.org
>

Re: my current view on evolution and emergent behavior

On Apr 9, 4:16 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
> ruled out evolution
>
> this is due to the indeterminate nature of free will, and the determinate
> nature of biology http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free will
>
> an indeterminate system cannot result from a determinate one http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism %28philosophy of mind%29
>
> clearly animals like us are not biological robots
>
> if the soul is not a product of evolution, can we say that other things
> are, like the body, or perhaps plants that have no consciousness, free
> will, mind or soul and are simply animated like biological robots
>
> we observe the details that COULD lead up to evolution, yet evolution
> happens over a long time span and has NEVER been observed as a WHOLE
>
> our bodies and plants with respect to their environment seem to be a fit
> pair, leading one to believe that perhaps irreducible complexity
> arguments are on track
>
> I believe reality is a dream of God's and he and us are all players in
> the dream
>
> there is a disconnect in material reality that leads up to this
>
> the mind does not communicate consciously with the central nervous system
> to exert will over the body, should we believe in a mysterious
> subconscious that we all collectively repress, or is the better answer
> that this is a true hole and disconnect in material reality intended for
> us to realize the disconnect and realize the illusory nature of materiall
> reality
>
> my thinking is that a dream or plan of God's would be evolutionary in
> terms of the progress of the dream, biological evolution might be a part
> of his plan, but if we note such intervention in some areas, noted above,
> we must consider the possibility of intervention in other areas, like
> biological development
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org

I'd have to say that the issue has to do with the ideas of causation
and determinism and free will and chaos. If we look into our past we
can see that every decision and every action we have taken was
inevitable and is now a fixed unchangeable reality. However the
mistake made is in thinking that this means that our future is of the
same nature as our past. In fact the best idea that fits all observed
facts is that it is not. The past is actual while the future is
potential. In quantum physics a given subatomic entity is considered
a particle only when it is spatially located as a given part of the
past.. until then it is a dynamic potentiality. The problem with any
idea of time considered as a linear arrangment past to future like a
railway track is that the fact of the present moment cannot be
accounted for. In a static spatialized space-time there can be no
movement but the fact of movement even of consciousness through static
space-time refutes this. The now moment is unique and it is not the
same in nature as a given past moment now fixed in the past. Not is
it a future moment as such since the future is indeterminate. A
particle can be determined to have been anywhere without any way of
knowing where in advance. Yes an indeterminant system cannot emerge
from a determinant system. Chaos cannot come from order. However the
reverse is possible even if only in random patterns. So the usual
notion of causation with a creation in the ditance past determining
all subsequent events is only a hindsite view. In fact only this
moment now is the moment of creation. The past is created from the
future, now. The potential future is actualized into the past. As we
are conscious now we are part of that creative process utterly and
ultimately free without order or rule or law. But as the past is
created the process of creation tends to verify and validate that past
and adhere to probablistic events. More needs to be understood about
this true nature of time and origination to better comprehend the
nature of creative will. I suggest reading some Alfred North
Whitehead to find the potential underpinnings of a science based on
this undestanding of the dynamic present.
--
RaaN

Re: my current view on evolution and emergent behavior

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 03:16:36 -0500, Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote:

>in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
>ruled out evolution
>
>this is due to the indeterminate nature of free will, and the determinate
>nature of biology
> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
>
>an indeterminate system cannot result from a determinate one
> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
>
>clearly animals like us are not biological robots
>
>if the soul is not a product of evolution, can we say that other things
>are, like the body, or perhaps plants that have no consciousness, free
>will, mind or soul and are simply animated like biological robots
>
>we observe the details that COULD lead up to evolution, yet evolution
>happens over a long time span and has NEVER been observed as a WHOLE
>
>our bodies and plants with respect to their environment seem to be a fit
>pair, leading one to believe that perhaps irreducible complexity
>arguments are on track
>
>I believe reality is a dream of God's and he and us are all players in
>the dream
>
>there is a disconnect in material reality that leads up to this
>
>the mind does not communicate consciously with the central nervous system
>to exert will over the body, should we believe in a mysterious
>subconscious that we all collectively repress, or is the better answer
>that this is a true hole and disconnect in material reality intended for
>us to realize the disconnect and realize the illusory nature of materiall
>reality
>
>my thinking is that a dream or plan of God's would be evolutionary in
>terms of the progress of the dream, biological evolution might be a part
>of his plan, but if we note such intervention in some areas, noted above,
>we must consider the possibility of intervention in other areas, like
>biological development

If there is an Intelligence, I would expect it to progress.
Reincarnation including "life reviews" at the end of each cycle seems
likely to me. The point of the life review would be to evaluate our
performance as preparation for the next cycle.

Frank Herbert, "The Jesus Incident" has an interesting concept: The
music is determined, we improvise the dance.

Re: my current view on evolution and emergent behavior


"Dale Kelly" <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.09.08.17.19@comcast,net ...
| in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
| ruled out evolution
|
| this is due to the indeterminate nature of free will, and the determinate
| nature of biology
| http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
|
| an indeterminate system cannot result from a determinate one
| http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
|
| clearly animals like us are not biological robots

Clearly we *are* meat puppets.

| if the soul is not a product of evolution, can we say that other things
| are, like the body, or perhaps plants that have no consciousness, free
| will, mind or soul and are simply animated like biological robots

No soul has ever been observed. No evidence for free will has ever been
produced.

| we observe the details that COULD lead up to evolution, yet evolution
| happens over a long time span and has NEVER been observed as a WHOLE

The same applies to history but we still believe it is broadly true.

| our bodies and plants with respect to their environment seem to be a fit
| pair, leading one to believe that perhaps irreducible complexity
| arguments are on track
|
| I believe reality is a dream of God's and he and us are all players in
| the dream

How do you know it's not my dream or for that matter your's?

| there is a disconnect in material reality that leads up to this

Since material reality is all there is there is nothing to be connected to.

| the mind does not communicate consciously with the central nervous system
| to exert will over the body, should we believe in a mysterious
| subconscious that we all collectively repress, or is the better answer
| that this is a true hole and disconnect in material reality intended for
| us to realize the disconnect and realize the illusory nature of materiall
| reality

The mind is the activity of the living CNS.

| my thinking is that a dream or plan of God's would be evolutionary in
| terms of the progress of the dream, biological evolution might be a part
| of his plan, but if we note such intervention in some areas, noted above,
| we must consider the possibility of intervention in other areas, like
| biological development

Having proved to yourself that God exists you now try to second guess hir.
No intervention has been observed.
--
Conscious Evolution

http :// www .euvolution,com /

Re: my current view on evolution and emergent behavior

On Apr 9, 1:16 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
> ruled out evolution
>
> this is due to the indeterminate nature of free will, and the determinate
> nature of biology [link removed]
>
> an indeterminate system cannot result from a determinate one [link removed]
>

But you can have a determinate system that does a very good job of
looking like an stochastic one. So good that it is impossible to tell
the two apart. "Free will" certainly could fall into this category.

> clearly animals like us are not biological robots
>

I don't think you've passed a Turing test yet so what is this "us" you
refer to? Certainly you've not shown any evidence of creative thought.

[snip]

Re: my current view on evolution and emergent behavior

On Apr 9, 1:16 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
> ruled out evolution

Oh no! The great and powerful Dale Kelly has ruled out evolution! I
guess that's it then. Shall we start a fund to help the out of work
biologists who will soon be roaming the streets with vacant looks in
their eyes?

Re: my current view on evolution and emergent behavior

On Apr 9, 7:12 am, "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On Apr 9, 1:16 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
>
> > in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
> > ruled out evolution
>
> Oh no! The great and powerful Dale Kelly has ruled out evolution! I
> guess that's it then. Shall we start a fund to help the out of work
> biologists who will soon be roaming the streets with vacant looks in
> their eyes?

No, the biologists can get new jobs studying layer upon layer of
biochemical complexity. And the best part is, they won't feel
compelled to come up with more and more complicated "circuitous
routes" by which IC structures supposedly evolved. (Occam's razor be
damned, say the evolutionists. We will believe anything in order to
keep our blind faith in naturalism).

With the burden of trying to shore up the crumbling theory of
evolution gone, they can get down to some serious science, uncovering
layer upon layer of biochemical complexity with glee, rather than
horror. Each successive layer of complexity will do more to confirm
ID, and relegate "random blind natural forces" to the dustbin of
history.

Time is on our side, evolutionists. With each successive layer of
complexity, ID becomes more and more certain. Your theory is dying,
and your blind rage at anyone who accepts ID is not helping.

Re: my current view on evolution and emergent behavior

bimms@juno,com wrote:
> On Apr 9, 7:12 am, "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>> On Apr 9, 1:16 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
>>
>>> in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I
>>> have ruled out evolution
>>
>> Oh no! The great and powerful Dale Kelly has ruled out evolution! I
>> guess that's it then. Shall we start a fund to help the out of work
>> biologists who will soon be roaming the streets with vacant looks in
>> their eyes?
>
> No, the biologists can get new jobs studying layer upon layer of
> biochemical complexity. And the best part is, they won't feel
> compelled to come up with more and more complicated "circuitous
> routes" by which IC structures supposedly evolved.

An argument from incredulity and a strawman. You win a rusty Bozo button!

> With the burden of trying to shore up the crumbling theory of
> evolution gone, they can get down to some serious science, uncovering
> layer upon layer of biochemical complexity with glee, rather than
> horror. Each successive layer of complexity will do more to confirm
> ID, and relegate "random blind natural forces" to the dustbin of
> history.
>
> Time is on our side, evolutionists. With each successive layer of
> complexity, ID becomes more and more certain. Your theory is dying,
> and your blind rage at anyone who accepts ID is not helping.

Jesus, were you jacking off when you typed this?

Re: my current view on evolution and emergent behavior

On Apr 9, 10:23 am, b...@juno,com wrote:
> On Apr 9, 7:12 am, "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > On Apr 9, 1:16 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
>
> > > in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
> > > ruled out evolution
>
> > Oh no! The great and powerful Dale Kelly has ruled out evolution! I
> > guess that's it then. Shall we start a fund to help the out of work
> > biologists who will soon be roaming the streets with vacant looks in
> > their eyes?
>
> No, the biologists can get new jobs studying layer upon layer of
> biochemical complexity.

What a great idea! I bet they never study that sort of thing now.
They just throw up their hands and say "gosh, look at all those layers
of complexity. Better not study them."

> And the best part is, they won't feel
> compelled to come up with more and more complicated "circuitous
> routes" by which IC structures supposedly evolved.

Yes, why actually learn things when you can just claim God was
responsible and go for a beer. I can see their publications now:

"The New Synthesis: An Exhaustive Study of Layer Upon Layer of
Complexity"

Abstract: God did it.
Materials and Methods: We said "God did it" and went for a beer.
Results: God Made layer upon layer of complexity, then we had a beer.
Discussion: Hallelujah!

Science will rocket foward like a car piloted by a crash test dummy!

> (Occam's razor be
> damned, say the evolutionists. We will believe anything in order to
> keep our blind faith in naturalism).

Just because you don't know how God did his magic doesn't mean it was
a simple solution. In reality it was so complex that only HE can
understand it. So he is struck down but Occam's razor afterall.

<snipification>

> Time is on our side, evolutionists. With each successive layer of
> complexity, ID becomes more and more certain. Your theory is dying,
> and your blind rage at anyone who accepts ID is not helping.

OK then, write back when you have evidence.

Re: my current view on evolution and emergent behavior


<bimms@juno,com > skrev i melding
news:1176139434.749415.116520@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
> On Apr 9, 7:12 am, "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 1:16 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> >
> > > in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
> > > ruled out evolution
> >
> > Oh no! The great and powerful Dale Kelly has ruled out evolution! I
> > guess that's it then. Shall we start a fund to help the out of work
> > biologists who will soon be roaming the streets with vacant looks in
> > their eyes?
>
> No, the biologists can get new jobs studying layer upon layer of
> biochemical complexity. And the best part is, they won't feel
> compelled to come up with more and more complicated "circuitous
> routes" by which IC structures supposedly evolved. (Occam's razor be
> damned, say the evolutionists. We will believe anything in order to
> keep our blind faith in naturalism).
>
> With the burden of trying to shore up the crumbling theory of
> evolution gone, they can get down to some serious science, uncovering
> layer upon layer of biochemical complexity with glee, rather than
> horror. Each successive layer of complexity will do more to confirm
> ID, and relegate "random blind natural forces" to the dustbin of
> history.
>
> Time is on our side, evolutionists. With each successive layer of
> complexity, ID becomes more and more certain. Your theory is dying,
> and your blind rage at anyone who accepts ID is not helping.
>

Looks like a joke to me.

Re: my current view on evolution and emergent behavior

On Apr 9, 1:23 pm, b...@juno,com wrote:
> On Apr 9, 7:12 am, "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > On Apr 9, 1:16 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
>
> > > in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
> > > ruled out evolution
>
> > Oh no! The great and powerful Dale Kelly has ruled out evolution! I
> > guess that's it then. Shall we start a fund to help the out of work
> > biologists who will soon be roaming the streets with vacant looks in
> > their eyes?
>
> No, the biologists can get new jobs studying layer upon layer of
> biochemical complexity. And the best part is, they won't feel
> compelled to come up with more and more complicated "circuitous
> routes" by which IC structures supposedly evolved. (Occam's razor be
> damned, say the evolutionists. We will believe anything in order to
> keep our blind faith in naturalism).
>
> With the burden of trying to shore up the crumbling theory of
> evolution gone, they can get down to some serious science, uncovering
> layer upon layer of biochemical complexity with glee, rather than
> horror. Each successive layer of complexity will do more to confirm
> ID, and relegate "random blind natural forces" to the dustbin of
> history.
>
> Time is on our side, evolutionists. With each successive layer of
> complexity, ID becomes more and more certain. Your theory is dying,
> and your blind rage at anyone who accepts ID is not helping.

Excellent point which I agree completely.

There are conserable limitations to what science can do in the area of
evolutionary theory:

The scientific method is limited to what can be observed with the five
senses.

If something can be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted, then
science can deal with it. But to expect science to investigate
something in the proverbial "sixth sense" is to demand too much of the
scientific method, and lays it open to charges of abuse or misuse.

The scientific method is limited to the present. That science is
limited to the present should be a self-evident, axiomatic truth,
since the present is the only place and time in which the five senses
operate.

Science seeks to explain the behavior of that which is, and to check
its explanation by means of experiments. But this experimental
requirement can be met only in the present time. The past, and
especially the beginning of things, lies beyond the grasp of this
method, and so science can only speculate about the origin and history
of the world .
To require science to make factual statements about pre-history is to
prostitute the method.

Since science is based upon observation, it must limit its scope to
human history, where things can be properly observed and recorded. In
recent years, there has been considerable disagreement between
creationists and evolutionists over whether or not science should be
limited to the present. Evolutionists have insisted on using science
in an attempt to study various aspects of their theory (e.g., the Big
Bang, the origin of the Solar System, etc.) that they freely admit
belong in "pre-history." Creationists have responded by suggesting
that such events are not observable, and therefore are not properly
within the domain of science. Yet there are certain things about both
evolution and creation that can be tested. In order to distinguish the
things within each model that can be tested from those that cannot,
some authors have suggested that science itself be divided into two
categories.

operation science vs. origin science

Operation science deals with regular, recurring events in nature that
require natural causes (eclipses, volcanoes, reproduction, etc.),
while origin science deals with singularities that may or may not
require a natural cause (the Big Bang, creation, etc.). The term
"origin science" may be new, but it operates by the standard
principles of causality and uniformity. The principle of causality
says that every material effect must have a prior, necessary, and
adequate cause. The principle of uniformity (or analogy) states that
similar effects have similar causes. In other words, the kinds of
causes that we observe producing effects today can be counted on to
have produced similar effects in the past. What we see as an adequate
cause in the present, we assume to have been an adequate cause in the
past; what we see as an inadequate cause in the present, we assume to
have been an inadequate cause in the past.

The origin of the Universe, and of life itself, occurred in the
distant past under conditions not necessarily experimentally
reproducible and therefore not able to be studied in a strictly
scientific manner.

Our theory of evolution has become one which cannot be refuted by any
possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted
into it. It is thus "outside empirical science" but not necessarily
false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either
without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in
extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their
validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted as
part of training

Thus, even defenders of evolutionary theory have admitted that their
theory is "outside of empirical science." Of course, evolutionists
have responded by suggesting that "creation is based on supernatural
processes in the past" and therefore is not scientific. However, the
"supernatural" beginnings of creation are no less available for
scientific examination than are the "prehistoric" (though allegedly
natural) beginnings of evolution. To the unbiased observer, that would
seem to put creation and evolution on equal footing, scientifically
speaking.

The scientific method is limited to telling us "how" a process works,
not "why."

The scientific method is incapable of dealing with the realm of
purpose. It can deal with cause and effect relationships; or as some
would say, it can deal with the succession of events in time. It
cannot deal with the "why" when one uses the term "why" with reference
to purpose. Science deals with mechanism, not purpose. "Why"-in
regard to purpose-is not a question science is equipped to answer.

The scientific method is limited in that it is amoral (non-moral).

Science is ignorant of values. There is nothing inherent in the
scientific method that provides for the definition or study of morals.
It should be recognized that science is incapable of making value
judgments about the things it measures. Many men on the frontiers of
science are realizing that there is nothing inherent in science to
guide them in the application of the discoveries they make. There is
nothing in science itself which will determine whether nuclear energy
will be used to destroy cancer or to destroy cities. This is a
judgment outside the scientific method to determine.

This is not meant to imply that scientists work without morals or
values. It is simply to say that whatever morals or values they
possess were not derived from the scientific method. Science is not
equipped to deal with morals.
The scientific method is limited in that it cannot deal with the
unique. The scientific method deals with those things that are: (a)
timeless; (b) universal; (c) dependable; and (d) repeatable. Those
things that do not fit in these categories are outside the realm of
science.

One-time events on earth are outside of science. The core of
scientific method or methods is experimental repeatability or
reproducibility. The important distinction between science and those
other systematizations (the arts, philosophy, and theology) is that
science is self-testing and self-correcting. The testing and
correcting are done by means of observations that can be repeated with
essentially the same results by normal persons operating by the same
methods and with the same approach.

This explains the limits of evolution as a science. Evolution can be
used as science in some areas. In other areas it is pseudoscience. In
general it is just the stinky garbage of last night's party before the
cleaning people have arrived.

limitationofscience

Re: my current view on evolution and emergent behavior


"limitationsofscience" <limitationofscience@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:1176159402.690320.60400@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
| On Apr 9, 1:23 pm, b...@juno,com wrote:
| > On Apr 9, 7:12 am, "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail,com > wrote:
| >
| > > On Apr 9, 1:16 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
| >
| > > > in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I
have
| > > > ruled out evolution
| >
| > > Oh no! The great and powerful Dale Kelly has ruled out evolution! I
| > > guess that's it then. Shall we start a fund to help the out of work
| > > biologists who will soon be roaming the streets with vacant looks in
| > > their eyes?
| >
| > No, the biologists can get new jobs studying layer upon layer of
| > biochemical complexity. And the best part is, they won't feel
| > compelled to come up with more and more complicated "circuitous
| > routes" by which IC structures supposedly evolved. (Occam's razor be
| > damned, say the evolutionists. We will believe anything in order to
| > keep our blind faith in naturalism).
| >
| > With the burden of trying to shore up the crumbling theory of
| > evolution gone, they can get down to some serious science, uncovering
| > layer upon layer of biochemical complexity with glee, rather than
| > horror. Each successive layer of complexity will do more to confirm
| > ID, and relegate "random blind natural forces" to the dustbin of
| > history.
| >
| > Time is on our side, evolutionists. With each successive layer of
| > complexity, ID becomes more and more certain. Your theory is dying,
| > and your blind rage at anyone who accepts ID is not helping.
|
| Excellent point which I agree completely.
|
| There are conserable limitations to what science can do in the area of
| evolutionary theory:
|
| The scientific method is limited to what can be observed with the five
| senses.

Let me stop you there. The notion of 5 senses is not a scientific one.
There is the sense of where parts of the body are, proprioception I think.
We also lump together about half a dozen separate senses under "touch". For
example heat and cold, pressure, light touch and pain: all separate senses.
--

Spencer

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein