---------------------------------------------------------------------------
**** http://www.GOANET.org ****
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goanet joins Noel Rebello to raise money for Daddy's Home (Margao, Goa)
Sponsor Noel as he climbs Mt. Kilimanjaro (5,882m or 19,298 ft)
Make a donation at www.Goanet.org, click on MAKE A DONATION,
state "Daddy's Home" in the Donation comments
For more information see: http://bit.ly/SupportDaddysHome
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science Cannot Explain Life
Excellent post by Santosh. Tautology by educated conservatives is well known.
911 was a result of fundamentalism by educated experts. Science is galloping.
Even if not crystal clear today, the concepts of life would unfold some day.
Better say: People trying to explain life do not know enough science to explain
Life.
Rajendra
Santosh had posted:
--- On Sun, 9/19/10, Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão wrote: Has science anywhere
explained that if you put all these chemical and physical components together,
it could produce ‘Life’? Or for that matter, produce a living substance? Yes.
Science has done precisely that over the last 70 years or so. Indeed, Craig
Venter and his colleagues have already taken the first steps towards creating
the first synthetic life form. Please see the following news
reports: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/researchers-create-first-synthetic-life/621927/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form The
original paper has been published at the following link in the prestigious
journal
"Science":http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1190719 The
main problem with the post appended below is a lack of clear thinking about
what is being explained, and by what. Indeed, almost every single statement in
that post is
either a meaningless tautology or an antiquated pre-scientific presumption
that has no explanatory value at all, and that has been thoroughly refuted by
scientific evidence. Here are the examples: 1. "It has explained ‘Living
Substance’. None of these points explain what ‘Life’ is!".....Dr. dos Reis
Falcão The distinction being drawn here is utterly meaningless. If
science has explained what makes a substance a "living" substance, it has by
definition explained what "life" is. If one understands the meaning of an
adjective i.e. "living", it follows logically that one also understands the
meaning of the noun from which it is derived. 2. " It is ‘Life’ that initiates
all these physical and chemical processes and not vice-versa." .....Dr. dos
Reis Falcão 3. It is ‘Life’ that creates these chemicals within the cells and
body of the living substance. .....Dr. dos Reis FalcãoScience has explained
exactly why these
statements are wrong, in addition to being meaningless tautologies. The word
"life" has no explanatory value. It was a noun that was coined in the
pre-scientific age to refer to observations of growth, reproduction,
inheritance and self-initiated movement in natural objects. Science has
comprehensively and convincingly explained the physical and chemical processes
that mediate these observed phenomena. How the physical and chemical processes
are initiated, and how the chemicals are created within cells are completely
explained by basic physics and chemistry. There is no special spooky
explanatory power in the word "life" beyond being a label to collectively refer
to these phenonomena. The above quotes are therefore a vestige from a
pre-scientific age that believed in a mysterious "vital" or "life" force.
Scientific evidence has completely refuted this vitalist notion.4. "‘Life’ is
something abstract and an abstract thing cannot be explained by
science as to prove scientifically you need concrete proof and not deductive
proof."......Dr. dos Reis Falcão The lack of clear and consistent rational
thinking is obvious in the above non sequitur because it immediately follows
the contradictory earlier statements 2 and 3 above. If "life" is something
abstract then how does this abstract thing "initiate" all these concrete
"physical and chemical processes and not vice-versa", as claimed in statement
2? If "life" is something abstract then how does it "create" concrete
"chemicals within the cells and body of the living substance", as claimed in
statement 3?
