RE: Scientific method proves order cannot exist w/o intelligence
January 5, 2010 at 10:24 pm
(This post was last modified: January 5, 2010 at 10:29 pm by Elles.)
There are plenty of ways to objectively define order but oddly you never came up with one. One way could be pattern (like the example you gave of bees making hexagonal combs) or symmetry. Snowflakes would fall under symmetry.
Furthermore, the rocks were not a representative sample of all inorganic objects. They only demonstrate that rocks do not create order. However, the laws of nature (being the prime mover of natural selection) can create patterns and symmetry within rocks and minerals (see salt cubes).
Really, the fact that the laws of nature can create order is the key thing, not that inorganic objects can't create order as nature is what exerts forces and not those objects.
P.S. Species is both singular and plural. You made the word "specie" up.
Okay, well technically specie is a word in the Oxford English Dictionary but it's more an adjective in that form, it only lists "species" as a noun. The proper scientific thing to do is use "species".
Furthermore, the rocks were not a representative sample of all inorganic objects. They only demonstrate that rocks do not create order. However, the laws of nature (being the prime mover of natural selection) can create patterns and symmetry within rocks and minerals (see salt cubes).
Really, the fact that the laws of nature can create order is the key thing, not that inorganic objects can't create order as nature is what exerts forces and not those objects.
P.S. Species is both singular and plural. You made the word "specie" up.
Okay, well technically specie is a word in the Oxford English Dictionary but it's more an adjective in that form, it only lists "species" as a noun. The proper scientific thing to do is use "species".
