mwm@ea.UUCP (04/25/84)
#R:decwrl:-725400:ea:11300019:000:6406 ea!mwm Apr 25 15:18:00 1984 Oh goody, scientific arguments! Something to sink my teeth into! /***** ea:net.religion / decwrl!arndt / 5:39 am Apr 22, 1984 */ >Here's some more from Robert Jastrow,THE ENCHANTED LOOM:MIND IN THE UNIVERSE. > >"In the scientist's version of Genesis, as in the Bible, the world begins with >the dazzling splendor of the moment of creation. Few astronomers could have >anticipated that this event - the sudden birth of the Universe - would become >a provern scientific fact, but observations of the heavens through telescopes >have forced them to that conclusion." Few could? What about the steady state/big bang controversy has been going on since Hubble noticed that the universe was expanding, back about 1925? Seems to me that somebody has been have been anticipating it for a while. >"The astronomical proof of a Beginning places scientists in an awkward position >for they believe that every effect has a natural cause, and every event in the >Universe can be explained by natural forces, working in accordance with >physical law. Yet science can find no force in nature that might account for >the beginning of the Universe; and it can find no evidence that the Universe >even existed before that first moment."chapter 1 >(look up the idea of singularity in physics) I haven't run into anybody who is particularly bothered by the fact that there may not have been anything before the Big Bang (Event 1). I personally favor the cyclic theory, which says that before Event 1, there was another universe that expanded and then recontracted back to the cosmic egg. No problems with a Beginning there. Of course, in those aleph-null preceding universes, I typed this exact same response. Gee - maybe our purpose in life is to break the mold? >"Now another mystery interrupts the scientist's story. According to the fossil >record, simple kinds of life appeared on the earth at some point during the >first billion years of its existence. Where did these living organisms come >from? Since the earth's surface was too hot to bear life at the start, this >life must have appeared on our planet later. Either it was placed here by >the Creator, or it evolved out of nonliving molecules in accordance with the >laws of chemistry and physics. There is no third way; it must have been one >or the other." (He mentions in a footnote an extraterrestrial source theory) Last time I looked, the most reasonably sounding hypotheses what the the basic living organisms (viruses and on down) got together in the cloud of shit (Sorry, but fertilizer doesn't sound right) that the Earth formed from. Given that they keep finding newer and more complex organic molecules in *interstellar* dust clouds, almost anything could pop up down here where the stuff gets thick. >Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, >but they are driven by the nature of their profession (I would say their >presuppositins) to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within >the boundries of natural law. They ask themselves, 'How did life arise out >of inanimate matter? And what is the probability of that happening?' And to >their chagrin they have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never >succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of >nonliving matter. (they have come some way- molecules that are the building >blocks of life- but no cigar!) Scientists do not know how that happened, and, >furthermore, they do not know the chance of its happening. Perhaps the chance >is very small, and the appearance of life on a planet is an event of >miraculously low probability. Perhaps life on the earth is unique in this >Universe. No scientific evidence precludes that possibility." chapter 1 Your definition of miraculously low and mine differ. Given a universe to play with, the probability of life forming somewhere indistinguishable from one. (ok - I confess, I didn't do the calculations. If you insist, I will. But you'll have to settle for a rough estimate. Everything I can calculate with gets upset when you get beyond a few thousand digits.) I suspect that a relatively small chunk of the universe, like a galaxy. Rough guess: given that there is one chance in a billion for life to form on a planet, and that there is roughly one planet per star (very rough guess, and low by current estimates), the probability that there is somewhere in the galaxy (discounting us) is: .99995. See? Big numbers easily make up for small probabilities. Finaglism, on the other hand, teaches that life will arise anywhere you give it a chance. Where it doesn't have a chance, it probably will anyway. Intelligence behaves similarly. Of course, there's no experimental data to support either the "life is everywhere" or the "life is unique" philosophy, but I like to think I've got *lots* of company. >etc, etc. Again, HE does not opt for Creation. He is an evolutionist. > >But he is not so certain as alot of the people on this net! > >He talks, as we ALL must, about degrees of evidence. I'm not so sure evolution is right, myself. But until something else reasonable comes along, it's the best model I have, so it's the one I prefer. I am much more sure that creationism doesn't cut it. It clashes to badly with the rest of science. > >From ch. 7 A GUIDING HAND All this was covered above, except: >it is even >harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random >disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors. Who said anything about random chance giving causing intelligence in our ancestors. Nobody I know knows what intelligence is, so claiming how it came about seems to be going a bit far. I like the "sufficiently complex interconnections" theory. But it supports my religion. >Scientists tend to feel that they know the >answer to that question, but their confidence in the completeness of their >knowledge may not be justified." I don't know that many scientists who have complete confidence any more. I'm certainly not one of them. In every field of observational science I've studied (astronomy & physics, plus a light smattering of others. Note that I don't claim to be an expert in any of these fields.), I've been more impressed by what we didn't know, and how inaccurate what we did know was, than any claims to complete knowledge. Four body problem? Gaaaaaaaa...... <mike