Gramsci wrote:

yut wrote:Darwin's is the THEORY of evolution...

I think your way of putting "theory" is a little off. The use of the word "Theory" in science is a lot more of a solid concept than the everyday usage...

Just saying.

galanter wrote:Not so impressed by that link. For example...

"I can't think of law or theory that really transcends all disciplines per se"

Well that's just muddle headed. Disciplines are differentiated by their methods. Science uses the "scientific method" which demands (among other things) empirical verification. Religion allows for divine revelation and faith...and doesn't put so much stock in empricism. Art...well art generally doesn't have theories or laws at all (although there is art theory, but that's not art...it's in the critical humanities where there are yet again different ground rules for judging the strength of a proposition.)

So to look for a law that transcends disciplines is to misunderstand both. The discipline comes first, and sets the ground rules for what becoming "a law" means and requires.

It's sort of like saying "I'm looking for a winning move that transcends all games". A move that's good in chess, and monopoly, and poker can't really exist because each game has its own rules. Similarly different disciplines have different rules, and thus cannot share common laws.

Anyway, the argument that the universe is so complex that it requires an intellegent designer is very old. What is new, however, is the contribution that complexity science adds to an understanding of how inanimate units of matter can self-organize into systems which appear to have been designed.

A good book to start with is Stuart Kaufman's "at Home in the Universe".

cheers, Phil

Cranius wrote:Inherit the Windbag

Sorry, but this got done.

matthew wrote: More later

Don Wise wrote:The thing that perhaps is closest to all of us is our own skeleton, and there are certainly all kinds of stupidity in our design. No self-respecting engineering student would make the kinds of dumb mistakes that are built into us.
All of our pelvises slope forward for convenient knuckle-dragging, like all the other great apes. And the only reason you stand erect is because of this incredible sharp bend at the base of your spine, which is either evolution's way of modifying something or else it's just a design that would flunk a first-year engineering student.
Look at the teeth in your mouth. Basically, most of us have too many teeth for the size of our mouth. Well, is this evolution flattening a mammalian muzzle and jamming it into a face or is it a design that couldn't count accurately above 20?
Look at the bones in your face. They're the same as the other mammals' but they're just squashed and contorted by jamming the jaw into a face with your brain expanding over it, so the potential drainage system in there is so convoluted that no plumber would admit to having done it!
So is this evolution or is this plain stupid design?

matthew wrote:I think that attributing the origin of life to a happenchance collision of molecules in a "warm little pool" under JUST the right circumstances is such a naive notion given what is known about organisms.