Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00392)

Dear Dallas,
I am unsure if I am still registered with BN-Study, although I keep receiving postings from the group, would you kindly pass this on my behalf.
Many thanks
Cass
 
Dear Dallas Odin and Reed
I am currently exploring on another forum the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics -
Entrophy, and its particular relationship to ID, Creationism and Darwinism.

2nd Law of Thermo is: "The order of a structured system erodes (matter)
(say the Big Bang) and becomes disorganized and random. The law of
increasing entrophy, the Law of increasing disorder.

Which to summarise in my words is "Energy spontaneously disperses from being
localised to becoming spread out if it is not hindered", making I assume,
energy measurable.
Potential Energy (in say a rock) is impacted by movement, say throwing it to
the ground, and is then called kinetic energy. The Rock also produces sound
energy from the compressed air that it dispurses, heating of the ground on
impact and a small amount of heat in the rock on impact.

Seems to be matter -/- force(+air+sound +heat)= quantifiable energy? I am a
layman and only guessing at these concepts.

Denser matter, say iron, have stronger molecular bonds and take longer to
spread, as the molecules are heavier.
Molecules that are capable of more free motion will have a greater energy
spread. And the wider the molecule is able to disperse, its entrophy
increases.

The Darwinists say that evolution does not violate the 2nd Law as it
operates from an open system, rather than a closed system. They appear to
me to be taking the "law of increasing disorder" but deny that this stems
from a structured system (closed, in that the Universe= everything that is
close around it). They also claim that the body is a continually changing
random system, (open) and is verifiable by a constant temperature of 98.4
degrees. But I could have their argument wrong, as I am non scientific.

Finally to my point, they raise the issue, that the universe is continually
expanding or entrophic and are questioning where the waste disperses. I,
believe that what they call waste, is recycled or metamorphasised atomic
matter and returns to its source. As HPB says there is no such thing as
dead matter in the universe.

Can you help me understand the concept so that I have a working knowledge of
the subject, from the evolutionists point of view.

Many thanks
Cass

----- Original Message -----
From: "Reed Carson" <reed3@blavatsky.net>
To: <study@blavatsky.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:14 AM
Subject: [bn-study] Re: Intelligent design? Randomness or pseudorandomness?
Or neither?


> Odin,
>
> Agree with everything you say below.
>
> "Darwin's Black Box" is a particularly valuable - now classic - book. It
> shows that at the molecular level there is such incredible complexity of
> such a nature that it could not come about by the Darwinian method of
small
> random beneficial changes.
>
> And yes this is close to "laboratory" style evidence. But lets be a
little
> more clear on that point.
>
> This is laboratory evidence because it needed that level of molecular
> observation to obtain the evidence at issue. Darwin did not have it
> available. But the nature of it is still "degree of improbability". Just
> degree of improbability based on laboratory-style data.
>
> So one essential line of thought here in the ID subject is to note this
> improbability. Imagine if a scientist approached a person and said
> effectively "psst. I have a theory to answer one of the very important
> questions of the world about us. But I should warn you - it is
> astronomically improbable. That is - the numbers expressing the theory's
> unlikely-hood are so large that you can't possible comprehend them. Would
> you still like to hear the theory?"
>
> If a scientist said that, likely no-one would listen. But that is what
> they are saying. And Darwin's Black Box is one of the books that makes
> this clear.
>
> I did have another question for you that I mentioned in my last
> letter. I'll repeat it.
> >Now Odin, my question for you: Do you think other scientists also have
> >his "laboratory proofs" kind of issue for ID?
>
> Now a new question for you or anyone that I sometimes ask myself. If
> Darwin had this molecular evidence available (which of course he did not)
> then would he still have proposed his theory?
>
> Reed
>
> At 02:30 AM 6/15/2005, you wrote:
> >Reed,
> >I was re-reading "Darwin's Black Box" - interesting in the example of
> >the complex system of coagulation of blood, the cascade of chemicals
> >in a certain sequence and interdependent, could not be the result of
> >Darwinian system of trial and error. The subject would bleed to death
> >before nature got it figured out. The biochemical arguments seem to be
> >a close as anything to "laboratory evidence".... ?
> >
> >Odin
> >
> >On 6/13/05, Reed Carson <reed3@blavatsky.net> wrote:
> > > Odin,
> > >
> > > You certainly were bringing us uptodate matterial on this one (same
day
> > > actually).
> > >
> > > I would say Hait's material has an interesting open-mindedness to
> > > it. However, he finally lands in what seems to me total confusion.
He
> > > probably didn't express himself as well as he meant. I'll discuss it
> > below.
> > >
> > > However, your question, Odin, I think is much better. You note that
Hait
> > > wants ID, "intelligent design", to be verifiable in the laboratory.
After
> > > all, that is just scientific method is it not?
> > >
> > > What we need, it would seem according to Hait, is to just arrange for
the
> > > "designer" of ID to kindly step forward and create a species under
> > > controlled laboratory conditions. And we should simply verify that in
some
> > > sense the newly created species could not have come about randomly.
Then
> > > if we were patient enough, Hait would no doubt like the event to be
> > > repeated. This is a good rule in science. The new species should be
> > > totally destroyed and then it should be created again while the
scientists
> > > continued to watch and record.
> > >
> > > Do you think I properly understood what you were implying?
> > >
> > > Of course this leaves us with a question. ID is close to the
Theosophical
> > > version (but not quite). If such laboratory conditions are ridiculous
then
> > > how do we go about proving the truth of ID?
> > >
> > > In looking very carefully at Hait's exact words we come to this
sentence:
> > >
> > > "A universe based on randomness, allows for the strange and bizarre
things
> > > to occur that evolution requires in order to counter the observable
facts
> > > of modern genetics. However, an orderly, deterministic universe does
not."
> > >
> > > Where is he coming from on this? He appears to be admitting there
are
> > > "strange and bizarre" things that somehow need to be explained to make
> > > sense of the "observable facts of modern genetics". To me it looks
like in
> > > this sentence he is admitting the seriousness of the problem. Game
> > > over. He admits to problem.
> > >
> > > But then he seems to say that it is this "randomness" that provides
the
> > > basis for an answer. But wait. He also explains the interesting idea
that
> > > quantum mechanics is no longer seen as being actually random, just
> > > appearing so because of its complexity. But then the possible source
of
> > > his solution is gone.
> > >
> > > So all in all I like his attempt to be open minded about the
Darwinism/ID
> > > issue. In this case, though, I think he fails in a crash of chaos.
> > >
> > > On the issue of laboratory proofs he is blithely sailing past much
more
> > > profound epistomological issues with seeming nary a concern - as you
seem
> > > to be observing.
> > >
> > > Now Odin, my question for you: Do you think other scientists also
have his
> > > "laboratory proofs" kind of issue for ID?
> > >
> > > Reed
> > >
> > > At 12:54 PM 6/10/2005, you wrote:
> > > >[For getting started reasons, I have submitted this email for Odin
> > Townley]
> > > >
> > > >The following was piece by Dr. John N. Hait, PhD was posted today on
his
> > > >website (Friday, June 10, 2005). For Theosophists it poses and
provokes
> > > >some interesting questions, especially the notion that all facts
should be
> > > >"verifiable in the laboratory". What "laboratory" we might ask?
> > > >
> > > >Here what John Hait writes:
> > > >One of today's hottest controversies is the war over evolution and
> > > >"intelligent design." So the real question is: Can either evolution
or
> > > >intelligent design be proven scientifically? Well, how do you go
about
> > > >"proving" anything scientifically?
> > > >
> > > >The scientific method was developed to discover logical explanations
for
> > > >observable facts, without using magic or absurd or contradictory
> > > >assertions. Valid theories need to be testable and verifiable in the
> > > >laboratory. For example, Einstein said that mass and energy were made
out
> > > >of the same stuff. He used mathematics to predict that large amounts
of
> > > >energy would be released from a nuclear chain reaction. Atomic bombs
> > > >proved it. But can such abstract concepts as evolution or intelligent
> > > >design be actually proven? Certainly! But you have to dig deeper than
> > usual.
> > > >
> > > >The construction of the universe is like Lego bricks. The bricks are
all
> > > >the same, and can be used to build a great variety of structures. But
they
> > > >fit together in only a handful of ways. So if what you want to build
> > > >doesn't follow the "Lego" rules, then it simply cannot be built out
of
> > > >Lego bricks. When we examine the fundamental processes of the
universe, we
> > > >find them to be very much like Lego bricks, because everything is
strictly
> > > >governed by the interactions of resonant fields. Fields do what
fields do,
> > > >and that's all they do. They always get it right, and they never
forget
> > > >how to do it.
> > > >
> > > >In order to determine if life could have evolved, or requires
intelligent
> > > >intervention, we must first examine the bricks to see how they hook
> > > >together. We need to discover the "Lego rules" of the universe.
> > > >
> > > >The first step in doing so requires us to advance beyond Heisenberg's
> > > >Uncertainty Principle, because it is actually the foundation
cornerstone
> > > >of both quantum mechanics and modern evolution. Heisenberg asserted
that
> > > >subatomic activities are random, and therefore, can only be examined
> > > >statistically. A universe based on randomness, allows for the strange
and
> > > >bizarre things to occur that evolution requires in order to counter
the
> > > >observable facts of modern genetics. However, an orderly,
deterministic
> > > >universe does not.
> > > >The problem is that, back in the 1920s, Heisenberg failed to provide
a
> > > >mechanism capable of manufacturing our deterministic macro world from
his
> > > >imaginary random-acting subatomic world. Today, however, thanks to
modern
> > > >laboratory tools and a fresh examination of resonation within atomic
> > > >structure, we now understand that activities below the quantum limit
are
> > > >not random-they are complex, but also precise, repeatable, reliable,
> > > >deterministic...causal. Because they turn out to be pseudorandom!
> > > >
> > > >Pseudorandom resonant fields (like Lego bricks) always do it right,
and
> > > >they never forget how to do it.
> > > >
> > > >That is not the kind of actions that would stem from random anything,
but
> > > >it is the kind of response we would expect from pseudorandom
subatomic
> > > >interactions that are so precise and reliable that we can actually
use
> > > >mathematics to describe and predict them.
> > > >
> > > >Why is it important that scientists are able to use mathematics?
Because a
> > > >random number times anything is a random number. It is the definition
of
> > > >"random." However, pseudorandom numbers are used in encryption
technology
> > > >because they are complex, while looking quite random. They are
actually
> > > >generated by orderly mathematical processes that can be used to
unscramble
> > > >what appears to be garbage to one man, and crank out the hidden
secret
> > > >message waiting for another. That's why they call it "intelligence."
> > > >
> > > >If you are interested in examining intelligent design, whether you
are for
> > > >it or against it, you need to understand the fundamental mechanism of
the
> > > >universe, because with no uncertainty, your competition will!
> > > >
> > > >The exciting E-book: "Resonant Fields, the Fundamental Mechanism of
> > > >Physics, Made Easy To Understand," is available online at
> > > >www.coolscience.info. Click on "Intelligent Design", or you can email
us
> > > >at coolscientist@rmrc.org.
> > > >(c) 2005 by CoolScience
> > > >
> > > >--------------
> > > >
> > > >How can the occult doctrines of The Secret Doctrine be made to
"connect"
> > > >with the needy reasonings of the current scientific mind? Modern
> > > >physicists hold to logical and demonstrable methods of proof.
Blavatsky
> > > >and Masters simply state the FACT that intelligence underlies nature
and
> > > >cosmos. How can the two be bridged, and how form a theory acceptable
to
> > > >both? One feels an underlying affinity growing between Theosophy and
> > > >Science. Perhaps some students could suggest where they might meet
and
> > mingle?
> > > >
> > > >Here's what H.P. Blavatsky writes in The Secret Doctrine, Vol. I,
> > > >601, under the heading "FORCES-MODES OF MOTION OR INTELLIGENCES?"
> > > >(Excerpted). This is just as abstract, abstruse, yet logical, as Dr.
> > > >Hait's "cool science".
> > > >
> > > >Modern Science is secure only in its own domain and region; within
the
> > > >physical boundaries of our solar system, beyond which everything,
every
> > > >particle of matter, is different from the matter it knows: which
matter
> > > >exists in states of which Science can form no idea. That matter,
which is
> > > >truly homogeneous, is beyond human perceptions, if perception is tied
down
> > > >merely to the five senses. We feel its effects through those
INTELLIGENCES
> > > >which are the results of its primeval differentiation, whom we name
> > > >Dhyan-Chohans...
> > > >
> > > >...That matter-the real primordial substance, the noumenon of all the
> > > >"matter" we know of,-even some of the astronomers have been led to
believe
> > > >in, and to despair of the possibility of ever accounting for
rotation,
> > > >gravitation, and the origin of any mechanical physical laws-unless
these
> > > >Intelligences be admitted by Science.
> > > >
> > > >...And surely it is our primeval matter, Akāsa, that Kant had in
view,
> > > >when proposing to solve Newton's difficulty and his failure to
explain, by
> > > >the natural forces, the primitive impulse imparted to the planets, by
the
> > > >postulation of a universally pervading primordial substance.
> > > >
> > > >It must be that which filled space-was space-originally, whose motion
in
> > > >differentiated matter was the origin of the actual movements of the
> > > >sidereal bodies and which, "in condensing itself in those very
bodies,
> > > >thus abandoned the space that is found void to-day." In other words,
it is
> > > >that same matter of which are now composed the planets, comets, and
the
> > > >Sun himself, which, having in the origin formed itself into those
bodies,
> > > >has preserved its inherent quality of motion; which quality, now
centred
> > > >in their nuclei, directs all motion. A very slight alteration of
words is
> > > >needed, and a few additions, to make of this our Esoteric Doctrine.
> > > >
> > > >The latter teaches that it is this original, primordial prima
materia,
> > > >divine and intelligent, the direct emanation of the Universal
Mind-the
> > > >Daiviprakriti (the divine light emanating from the Logos*)-which
formed
> > > >the nuclei of all the "self-moving" orbs in Kosmos. It is the
informing,
> > > >ever-present moving-power and life-principle, the vital soul of the
suns,
> > > >moons, planets, and even of our Earth. The former latent: the last
one
> > > >active-the invisible Ruler and guide of the gross body attached to,
and
> > > >connected with, its Soul, which is the spiritual emanation, after
all, of
> > > >these respective planetary Spirits.
> > > >
> > > >...those Kantian theories are as metaphysical, and as transcendental
as
> > > >any occult doctrines; and more than one man of Science would, if he
but
> > > >dared speak his mind.... From this Kantian mind and soul of the Suns
and
> > > >Stars to the MAHAT (mind) and Prakriti of the Purānas, there is but a
> > > >step. After all, the admission of this by Science would be only the
> > > >admission of a natural cause, whether it would or would not stretch
its
> > > >belief to such metaphysical heights. But then Mahat, the MIND, is a
"God,"
> > > >and physiology admits "mind" only as a temporary function of the
material
> > > >brain, and no more.
> > > >
> > > >The Satan of Materialism now laughs at all alike, and denies the
visible
> > > >as well as the invisible. Seeing in light, heat, electricity, and
even in
> > > >the phenomenon of life, only properties inherent in matter, it laughs
> > > >whenever life is called VITAL PRINCIPLE, and derides the idea of its
being
> > > >independent of and distinct from the organism.
> > > >
> > > >----------------
> > > >
> > > >How then does one find reconciliation? How does one even formulate a
way
> > > >of proving objectively these "spiritual emanations" of Occult
Philosophy?
> > > >
> > > >Odin


"W.Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@earthlink.net> wrote:
June 15 2005









































































		
---------------------------------
Discover Yahoo!
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM & more. Check it out!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]