Artificial Life is Almost Here say the Neo-Scientists

Do you mock these men because they are smarter than you or are you just against modern science and technology and the advancement of the life sciences?

No! I mock them because they mock themselves…

They investigate living systems expecting to find DESIGN. Then they expect that their intelligent changes to that design will have predictable results. Therefore, they work assuming the Christian world view that purposeful design exists in the creation and in living thing. But they profess believe in the irrational religion of naturalism that life is the result of the impersonal force of mindless evolution.

Hitler and his Nazis were deevoted to "life sciences."

Dr. Mengale experimented with human "subjects" with absolute freedom, creating many of the drugs
we call "medicines."

You need to visit and Atascadero State Hospital or one of the hundreds hidden "retreats" where the beneficiaries of your science are stashed.

Every beat cop knows that something sinister has happened almost every "ome" on his beat and to every "mother." He also know that half the "fathers in the land either are hopeless wards of the druggie loony bin or wandering the desert of nevada sniffing, snorting and stumbling in rags after the "ultimate thrill."

At Atascadero, you can observe incredible human wrecks who are there because of recreational drugs or prescription "medications." Oh, you superior "scientists" diagnose their problems with the skills of carnival shell game operators; but most of you with M.D. and Phd braid on your uniforms are addicted to your own poison.Just take alook at the suspension handed down every day by state licensing boards.

Your "modern science and technology and the advancement of life sciences" has led to a an incredible disaster for the civilizing process.

Then let's take a look at the incidence of deformaties and autonomic system abnormalities since you began "marketing" birth control pills and "uppers" and "downers" in the Fabulous Fifities.

Your Space Age Science has been nothing more than
an intellectual,spiritual and economic disaster.

But what the hell! These American idiots are giving you everything you want. Why did you deign to reply to RefMan?

I love your passionate reply to WWM.

You should know that he is my evil twin (also taken from Bunyan). Sometimes he poses questions and objections that I want to address with the article. Thanks for speaking truth to him.

It would be interesting to see you engage Jack sometime, who frequently posts here as a real WWM. (Jack this is not meant to be an insult, only that Bunyan is a master with his allegorical characters in that they represent real people.)

After all these years, I continue to wrestle with the devil and lose every time.

Reminds of a visit as a "resource communications person" to an all black school district in LA County 40 years ago. Their assistant super was a fierce white woman determined to eradicate all Texans, especially me. She was explaining to the all black assembly of teachers and admins that her newly revised "ethnic" curriculum was derived from her studies at Stanford.

"You must understand that African American children are different from white children. You simply must not be 'directive' with a black child."

"By requiring nothing you will achieve everything," she intoned in her best Stanfordian nonsensical pontification

I came "unglued," as the principal told me later as we walked out of the meeting.

"You can't hit that babe, my friend," the principal said. "Let me do it. They treat black men better down at the county lock up."

Valiant, I understand this post was meant to be sarcastic. But to insult the scientific community like this is to spit in the face of everything that makes life in this first world nation more advanced than anything in recorded history. You are being a complete hypocrite. You're using the very fruits of science (a computer and the internet) to mock it. Do you not see the problem with such views?

You once made the argument to me a while back that life is too complex that nothing short of a supernatural sky god could have made it. Yet here we are on the cusp of making artificial life and you're mocking it? It shoots a hole in the argument that life needs a supernatural forces. Science is showing it can be made with complex chemistry and biological processes. That means NO supernatural forces are being used. To say that is using Christian laurels is utterly false and nonsensical.

I understand you don't like science that doesn't agree with you. You've made that abundantly clear with numerous posts. But you must understand that you are being a total hypocrite every time you mock science when you are enjoying its fruits. If you really wanted to practice what you preached you would go back to the annuls of the dark ages, which means no first world medicine, no first world education, and no first world comforts like electricity, air conditioning, and processed foods.

I've said before I respect people's beliefs. But it's very hard to respect hypocrisy. Although I try.

I am very specific with the mocking of science. Did you bother to read my answer to WWM at the beginning of this thread? I have explained over and over my view of science is based on man’s dominion over the creation given to him by the Creator. I am mocking those who mock God by pointing out the hyper-hypocrisy practiced by the neo-scientists. Take your straw men elsewhere; they are not worth a response. BTW after visiting your site, I see what you mean by respecting other viewpoints.

I'm still trying to understand the rationality of the alleged hypocrisy between using a computer and and upholding the Holy Word of God.

I suppose to reprobates, anything but the truth makes perfect sense.

Again Valiant, you're ascribing things to science that do not apply. You say they are hypocrites because they espouse some religion of naturalism when that by the very definition of science is completely false. No scientists worships or proclaims nature diving. You've said this before and I've told you repeatedly that it is wrong because it violates the very philosophy of science, which can have no religion or supernatural aspects to it. They don't assume anything about purposeful design. They follow the understood rules of chemistry and biology and use them to create real, tangible works that can further the knowledge of mankind and make our lives better. And to say my response is not worthy is somewhat of a cop out because you're avoiding the point I'm trying to make. There is no 'neo-science' as you claim. There is only science, that which helps us understand our world and furthers the knowledge of mankind. There are just certain parts of science you don't like because they contradict your religious beliefs and rediculing them doesn't make them any less valid.

And cheifest, the hypocracy lies in the notion that science by definition has to reject all supernatural forces in order to propogate and that includes god. And a computer is a product of science. Science is the opposite of dogma and religious zealotry and it's nothing short of ironic that people use it to propogate the exact opposite. That's where the hypocracy comes in. It may not make sense to you, but those are the facts of the matter.

Those are "your" facts, which are relative. The truth is, there is nothing wrong with science working inside the framework of God's truth; they need not be mutually exclusive. I've read where Vft has explained this already, in relation to many great scientists of the past.

Nowhere does God command you to "throw out the baby with the bath water".

Chiefest, facts are not subjective. Twisting the facts is. That is what you are doing when you say some part of science isn't working within the framework of god. But you keep forgetting that science by definition cannot have god or anything supernatural as part of the process, even in the course of ethics. That would violate the fundemental philosophy of science. I'm aware of the scientists Valiant has mentioned. And while they were believers, they NEVER used god in their hypothesis or their experiments. Their beliefs had no affect on the outcomes of their experiments or their credibility. What mattered was the knowledge they uncovered.

Thomas Edison was a noted non-believer. But that didn't stop him from creating many useful inventions that are still used to this day. His non-belief was no more a factor than Newton's devout belief. They are irrelevant to scientific methodology. What matters is what is learned and what is gained.

Will you continue to ignore the point of by objection to neo-science? We do not question that advancement is being made in the sciences, but it is in spite of the neo-scientists not because of them.

They are following the dominion mandate by investigating the creation and discovering its design, even as they profess that there is no design. Do you not see the inconsistency in that? We claim that this was the motivation that gave rise to modern science. It is intellectual dishonesty to profess otherwise because the historical record is not ambiguous.

Now, if you want to talk hypocrisy and intolerance, then look at the current ‘scientific community’. Consider that men like Kepler, Newton, Mendel, Pasteur, etc, etc…would be unable to publish their work today because of the inquisition you call peer review. Yes! Religious bigotry is alive and well. That’s why I refer to neo-science as the religious practice of naturalism.

I'm not ignoring your points, Valiant. I'm pointing out the inconsistancies in them. You claim there is this whole branch called neo-science that doesn't exist. There are no official wings of neo-science nor is there some grand conspiracy anymore than there is some grand conspiracy that keeps gravity working.

There is no inconsistancy in trying to uncover how and why the world works. You say it is trying to look for design while rejecting the designer. That's just word play on your part. Nobody is looking for design. They're looking for patterns, order, and structrue that emerge from bottom-up systems. What you're talking about is top-down, ordained by some supernatural force that has no proof or evidence supporting it. That's the inconsistancy and using straw men to ridicule what you don't like about certain aspects of science doesn't make them any less valid.

And you are wrong about men like Keppler, Newton, and Mendal. Their work sould be just as valid and just as likely to pass peer review today because their work involves repeatable, testable hypothesis independent of any dogmatic assumptions on faith. A non-beleiver could just as easily replicate the results as a believer using Newton's theorums. Belief is irrelevant. That's how science works and that's how it has always worked. You can assume what you want about science, but that doesn't make it true.

Let’s make it as simple as possible. Without the presupposition that design exists in the world because the world is created and ordered by a reasonable God who also created reasonable image bearers and commanded them to have dominion over the creation, there would simply be no modern science as we know it today. This is what you will not acknowledge and cannot see.

But much more that this, the Christian world view has an answer for science. Why does science exist? Why did God give men dominion over his creation? When men discover the design of the creation they glorify the Creator by displaying His wisdom and power in creating life and making a suitable environment for life to exist. The neo-scientists are guilty of suppressing this truth by not giving glory to God by giving thanks to Him for their life and work.

Jack, emergent order and structure from disorder or as you say ‘bottom-up systems’ requires intelligent work. This is what I mean that your theory of every thing violates the fundamentals of real science. Intelligent work requires a creator outside the creation or an engine designed by the creator to transform raw energy into something useful. Your theory has neither, which is why we mock the neo-scientists.

They hijack real science build on a sure foundation and work to destroy the foundation on which they exist. Much like the modern liberal who hates our heritage and rails at the evils of theocracy while he works to build a new theocracy based on socialism and man as his own authority. Whatever is not of Christ will fail and pass away.

Valiant, your assumption is wrong in that design exists so there must be a designer. As I've revealed to you before, apparent design can emerge as a result of bottom-up emergance. It's is a field that is also known as general systems theory and it is among the most widely know, widely accepted, and most fundemental attribute of science. It states that starting from the smallest and simplest of forces like atoms and molecules, guided by simple rules of atomic and quantum properties, they interact in a transactional process that functions in a system that forms other systems that forms other systems and so on to create the larger, seemingly designed systems that are the result of this emerged complexity. There is no need to assume god at any level. They do not require intelligence as you claim, only the simple rules of nature.

The notion that science exists because god gave man some authority to understand the creation is a completely unscientific assertion because you're using supernatural forces. And science by definition can have no supernatural forces. To mock thsoe who reject this is just an appeal to ridicule and a blatent assertion of dogma, which proves nothing but your own beliefs.

You continue to assert that these 'neo-scientists' exists, but you have never properly defined them. You only seem to imply that it involves any sceience that flies in the face of your idea of god. That's not an official concept. That's just your dogmatic asseration. To claim otherwise is to be guilty of arrogance. And I don't take you for an arrogant person, Valiant. I just don't think you understand how some of these scientific principles apply. In essance they do not have any effect on religion, just the stories told about them.