[Osx-nutters] The separation of church and state.

[David Cake]

At 12:44 AM +0000 12/12/07, Stefano Mori wrote:
>On 2007-Dec-11, at 23:05, Patrick Coskren wrote:
>
>>On Dec 11, 2007, at 1:47 PM, Stefano Mori wrote:
>>
>>>Perhaps, but I notice you made it all of 5 words before you resort 
>>>to the word "code", which is related to language, symbols, and 
>>>laws.
>>>
>>
>>Okay, before getting to anything else, it's time to call you out 
>>(in a friendly way) on a logical technique you use fairly 
>>frequently, but which is incorrect.  That's to take a word that 
>>means a specific thing in one context, but that can mean other 
>>things in other contexts, and then interpret it in a different 
>>context. 
>>
>
>
>It's a bit confusing because I'm talking about the way Creationists 
>see things, the way I see things, and the way mainstream science 
>talks about random process, and discussing the three together.

	I think talking about it as a 'random process' is confusing 
you. Think of it as a process that involves randomness. The long term 
outcome of a process that involves randomness can be highly 
predictable, and thats why people go into the casino business.


>That's fine, I'm not trying to imply a codemaker, nor master programmer dude.
>
>What I'm curious about is whether such complex arrangement/code can 
>come about purely by random causes, ie. a pattern out of no pattern. 
>It's like, if you'll excuse me shifting context :-) saying that the 
>planets are randomly orbiting--they just happen to go round in 
>ellipses--when in fact we know that there is a force or field (no 
>field-maker, no one waving their wands, just a force) which 
>non-sentiently "attracts" bodies into orbits.

	Its a process.

	Think about fractals like the mandelbrot set. Take a simple 
equation, iterate it over and over again, a complex pattern (in some 
senses an infinitely complex pattern) emerges. Is there something 
external to the simple equation that produces this magnificent 
complex pattern, some external force? No. Its just a property of the 
simple equation that isn't obvious, but is nevertheless there.
	Now, imagine that the iterative process has a random element 
as well. Actually, quite a few random elements. But it remains, at 
its heart, a simple rule iterated. The pattern that emerges is just 
as infinitely complex, but also less constrained and predictable. 
Thats what evolutionary processes can be like.
	Now, there are some more mysteries in evolution to be 
considered - the processes of sexual and asexual reproduction are 
quite algorithmically different, for example, so there was an 
important transition that occurred there. But the point is that 
saying 'evolution starts with randomness and produces something 
complex, there must be something magical that does so' misses the 
whole point - that producing complexity is simply a property of 
evolution. That this process does so is wondrous and fascinating, but 
not inexplicable.

>Yes, science does that. The "need" I'm referring to is the need to 
>kick the Creationists out of schools and anywhere of influence.

	Creationism is a dedicated, carefully organised, attack on 
science, plain and simple. Wondering why science reacts with extreme 
hostility to an organised, orchestrated attack is no issue at all - 
science is hostile to creationists, because creationists are hostile 
to science by definition.
	(I'm using here creationism specifically to describe the 
dressing up of biblical literalism as science, not biblical 
literalism itself, if that distinction is important to anyone - 
biblical literalism is in natural conflict with science, but 
creationism is a particular strategy and campaign prompted by that 
natural conflict)
	So the question of 'why do scientists hate creationism' is a 
naive one, to me. Because science knows a direct attack when it sees 
one.

>Describing things as "random" may be making it too simple.

	Yes. As I said, scientists and mathematicians have a 
different sense of 'randomness'. Its natural that anyone who studies 
statistics and probability develops a fairly sophisticated sense of 
what they mean by randomness, just as a psychologist develops a more 
sophisticated idea of mind. And trying to communicate that 
sophisticated concept to outsiders can cause confusion.

	Cheers
		David