Creationism and other doctrines. Was Mindforth

John R. Strohm strohm at airmail.net
Wed Dec 18 08:31:00 EST 2002


"Dennis Clark" <dlc at io.frii.com> wrote in message
news:3e001ef0$0$16021$75868355 at news.frii.net...
> In comp.robotics.misc Jerry Avins <jya at ieee.org> wrote:
> [snip]
> : One last comment, then I shut up: Belief that science is the way to
> : explain the world is in it self a matter of faith, one that we share. In
> : the end, we believe what we choose believe. Unless, or course, our
> : beliefs are shaped by coercion, and that is unlikely except in a
> : theocracy of dictatorship. Yes, I live in the US, which is fortunately
> : (for a while yet, anyhow) neither.
> : Jerry
> : --
> : Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>
>   Sorry, errrt!  Wrong answer, come back and play again sometime.  Science
> is NOT faith.  This comment is foolish in the extreme.  Science depends
upon
> observable and repeatable data.  Faith is what happens when you have no
> proof and wish to indulge in wishful thinking.  The ignorant "believe",
the
> informed base decisions on what is known and observable.
>   Calling science "faith" flies in the face of logic, it's not magic and
does
> not require hand-waving nor missing stone tablets that someone, sometime,
> said they believe they saw.  Show me a miracle that is rigorously
repeatable
> (not just something we don't understand yet, like a baby) and I'll show
you
> the science that can explain it.
>   This "faith" nonsense (in the purest sense of the word "nonsense") has
> caused more grief and suffering than even our worst scientific debacles to
> date.  We're better off without it (that is an opinion).

Dennis, what you are missing is that you are in fact expressing "faith" when
you express the concept of "observable" and "repeatable".  I.e., you are
expressing FAITH that an observable, repeatable phenomenon is in FACT both
observable and repeatable.

Dr. Stephen Hawking showed, many years ago, that existing theory allows for
the existence of regions of space-time that are flat-out unobservable.  We
DO NOT and CANNOT know what is happening in those regions.  He then went on
to show that the boundaries of those regions were uncertain, and that
phenomena could emerge from inside the unobservable region.

The executive summary is this: a black hole isn't completely black. It
leaks, and furthermore it can leak ANYTHING AT ALL.  According to Dr. Jerry
Pournelle, who attended Dr. Hawking's presentation at Caltech (on invitation
from Dr. Robert Forward), Hawking finished his talk by saying "Of course, it
might be a while before the black hole emitted one of the people in this
room..."

Hawking's talk was entitled "The Breakdown of Physics in the Region of
Space-Time Discontinuities", or some such.  His second slide was the same
title, except he'd crossed out the word "Physics" and substituted
"Physicists".






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list