From: jmaslow@jps.net
Subject: Re: louis armstrong int'l (a new orleans meditation)
Date: September 25, 2005 6:04:49 AM PDT
To: rjon@vzavenue.net
Thanks Rich and Aster for beautiful meditations. Below is a nice
meditation on the mindset that, without too much effort, can be tied to
(corporate) globalization and many other (non-conscious) materialistic
events of the day. It is from www.darwinismrefuted.com. don
Self-Organization: A Materialist Dogma
The claim that evolutionists maintain
with the concept of "self-organization" is the belief that inanimate
matter can organize itself and generate a complex living thing. This is
an utterly unscientific conviction: Observation and experiment have
incontrovertibly proven that matter has no such property. The famous
English astronomer and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle notes that matter
cannot generate life by itself, without deliberate interference:
If there were a basic principle of
matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence
should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for
instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill
it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any
gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of
radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a
year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by
living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so
save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment.
You will find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge
composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.381
Evolutionary biologist Andrew Scott admits the same fact:
Take some matter, heat while stirring
and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The 'fundamental'
forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear
forces are presumed to have done the rest... But how much of this neat
tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation?
In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical
precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either
controversy or complete bewilderment.382
So why do evolutionists continue to
believe in scenarios such as the "self-organization of matter," which
have no scientific foundation? Why are they so determined to reject the
intelligence and planning that can so clearly be seen in living systems?
The answer to these questions lies
hidden in the materialist philosophy that the theory of evolution is
fundamentally constructed on. Materialist philosophy believes that only
matter exists, for which reason living things need to be accounted for
in a manner based on matter. It was this difficulty which gave birth to
the theory of evolution, and no matter how much it conflicts with the
scientific evidence, it is defended for just that reason. A professor
of chemistry from New York University and DNA expert, Robert Shapiro,
explains this belief of evolutionists about the "self-organization of
matter" and the materialist dogma lying at its heart as follows:
Another evolutionary principle is
therefore needed to take us across the gap from mixtures of simple
natural chemicals to the first effective replicator. This principle has
not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but it is
anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and
self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken
for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied to
the origin of life by Alexander Oparin.383
The truths that we have been
examining in this section clearly demonstrate the impossibility of
evolution in the face of the second law of thermodynamics. The concept
of "self-organization" is another dogma that evolutionist scientists
are trying to keep alive despite all the scientific evidence.
|
||||||
|
Create a free Reader Account
to post comments. Login
Get free daily SCIY Notable SCIY Topics
Search
Recent Visitors
Debashish - Oct 13, 09:13AM
ned - Oct 13, 08:21AM
Surendra - Oct 13, 03:23AM
koantum - Oct 13, 01:06AM
Srinivasan Krishnan Ayyangar - Oct 13, 12:13AM
rakesh - Oct 12, 11:30PM
Rich - Oct 12, 09:43PM
Rick - Oct 12, 07:01PM
Chandra - Oct 11, 01:36PM
Vladimir - Oct 10, 05:13AM
The Best of SCIY
Category Folders (below) Click folder names for contained articles, Click 'Main Page' to return. Month Archive
|
164 jm. Self-Organization: A Materialist Dogma
by
ronjon
on Sun 25 Sep 2005 06:05 AM PDT | Permanent Link
Comments
Re: 164 jm. Self-Organization: A Materialist Dogma
by
ronjon
on Sun 25 Sep 2005 06:01 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Don,
Have you read Stuart Kaufman's book: "At Home in the Universe"? It's a cogent presentation of why scientists take "Self-Organization" seriously. The quotes you present are out of date and do not take into account the new mathematics of complexity. Their distainful attitude toward evolutionary theorists being ignorantly compelled to make "unscientific" statements by so-called "materialist dogma" speaks more of their desire to believe in a non-materialist dogma, imho. Can you accept that my saying this doesn't necessarily place me in the materialist camp? My perspective is that naively rejecting the serious science now underway in this area really doesn't help our case for possible spiritual influences. It just places us in the camp of religious believers with whom there's no possibility of serious dialogue.<br> The question of how increasing complexification seems to occur through evolutionary processes is much deeper than simply assuming that self-organization somehow conflicts with the second law of thermodynamics. If you're interested in following the real science going on in this area, I recommend you check out the site of the Santa Fe Institute for Complexity Studies: www.santafe.edu/ . Namaste, ~ ron Re: Re: 164 jm. Self-Organization: A Materialist Dogma
by
Rich
on Wed 28 Sep 2005 05:35 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Don, Ron
I was actually thinking of the same Kaufman book which Ron mentioned. I was fairly enthusiastic when I was reading it. It was very non-dogmatic scientific and I think he gave a plausible explaination of how life may have arisen from matter, although it was not a reductionist account, because it employed the notion of "emergence" which although it may be as Don referred to it a "weasel word" and can mean different things to different people still is taking IMO a 180 degree turn from the notion of reductionism. Although I think the theory of evolution is riddled with holes as it stands now, it does seem to me that the author of the article and web site leans on his own dogmatic stance and sets up straw men in his theory. He cites a catagorization of Richard Lowentin (admitedly someone I really admire for his humanist stance against reductionism in science and politics) of following blindly a materialist dogma, yet Lowentin is acknowledging in the quote that this is just what scientist are trained to do, and that it is a sort of metaphyiscal premise of science. Sri Aurobindo may not have accepted the standard Darwinian Stick about evolution, but there is no doubt that to some degree it probably influenced his own thinking. Much needs to be revised in reductive evolutionary theory but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water Rich Re: Re: Re: 164 jm. Self-Organization: A Materialist Dogma
by
Ron
on Wed 28 Sep 2005 07:01 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Hi Rich,
I was thrilled to see that you've immediately begun participating in SCIY with your reply to my comment above. I just wanted to make sure that you know that Don isn't yet on SCIY. Debashish, Keka, you, Kim & me are the only people I've invited to be on it so far, as a core team, because all of you have indicated an interest in co-creating its ongoing growth. I felt it was important that we be aligned on the structure & format I've set up before we begin inviting the other participants in postaum2005. What do you think about also inviting Rod Hemsell to be on the core team? ~ ron |
SCIY Index & Page Views
View SCIY Slide Shows
Recent Articles
Drill baby drill!
Rich
What is SCIY ?
ronjon
Recent Comments
Full text of Comments
Recent Book Reviews
Recommended Links
|
||||
|
||||||