Dna day essay contest question - correlation research definition pdf


 

Manage



 
 

Search

 
 
 

News

 

Comments

dna day essay contest question

dna day essay contest questionDna day essay contest question -He would simply say, “yes, natural selection explains the diversity and adaptation of living organisms.At this point, I don’t know what else to do except to quote some scholars in an attempt to bludgeon my fellow atheists into accepting this basic principle in philosophy of science.But you are missing the prime motivation for the “God did it” explanation: The explanation itself, which you admit fails in all other respects, lacks evidentiality, etc.“I was really enthused about this essay topic as heart disease runs in my family and I wanted to understand more about the condition as well as helping to inform others.” Principal of Perth Modern School Lois Joll said the school was very proud of Shibi’s efforts in taking it upon himself to research and the write the essay.The problem is that most theists I encounter don’t think of the Goddidit explanation in terms of an inference to best explanation. They have ended up with the conclusion that God explains something (in particular the universe). The theist, like the nontheist, must at some level admit ignorance. No, the argument from complexity is that PHYSICAL complexity needs a designer.In any event, naturalists have been wrong at least as often as they’ve been right, throughout history. I want to kill one of atheism’s most popular and resilient retorts.…the [why-regress] argument brings out the important facts that explanations can be chained, and that what explains need not itself be understood…According to this argument, science merely transfers our puzzlement from one phenomenon to another… we don’t simply replace one phenomenon with another.” ATHEIST: “Well, I don’t have such an explanation.” THEIST: “Then you have explained nothing.” Derrida: ATHEIST: “We can account for such complexity.Explaining the fine-tuning of the universe to be life-permitting in the first place is an entirely different issue.” I think a better objection to the argument that the universe required a cause is that this argument commits the fallacy of composition.Natural selection, which must occur if there is heritability, variation and differing reproduction rates in a species, explains the diversity and adaptation of living organisms.” THEIST: “But that’s no explanation!That is not the problem with offering “God did it” as an explanation.The atheist is not raising some general requirement for good explanations, he is pointing out the self-defeat in this theistic explanation. You can trace every scientific explanation back to the point where we don’t know. See Mortimer Adler’s version of this Leibnizian Cosmological argument: this tendency to ask “Who created god?Second, it looks like we’ll have a generality problem here.the problem with offering “God did it” as an explanation.How does one determine which tradition an explanation comes from?Again the reasons are not practical, such as the finiteness of our faculties, but logic or conceptual, entailed by the very notions of explanations involved.If it is fallacious to ask who designed god, then it must also be fallacious to ask who designed the human eyeball.Or consider atheist philosopher of science Michael Friedman.dna day essay contest questionSo even if we grant that explanations must “come from” a tradition, why should the theist accept that his explanation “comes from” the problematic general tradition, rather than the unproblematic specific tradition?I think that we have lots of experience with the former, and can make all kinds of useful comments about it, but we have NO experience of the latter, and should just be silent and agnostic about it. ” Even many religious skeptics are convinced that God did it.’ of the answer itself, until my mother ran out of answers or patience…because it leaves the explanation itself (God) unexplained.It fails to provide almost everything philosophers and scientists look for in a successful explanation.The following is a formal version of an argument I have often had and I think it illustrates how the infinite regress objection can be a good way to get a more serious conversation about explanations started. Something requires an explanation, nothing does not. Once this is pointed out, I find I can move on to consider an inference to best explanation argument. God is an immaterial, necessarily existing being by definition.I’ve had the exact same thought, but not in such detail. One day I thought, “Well, if we accept the explanation of why things fall down as ‘gravity’, what explains gravity? Same thing with the God explanation, just in fewer steps. No, the argument is that everything either has a cause for its existence, or exists by the necessity of its own nature. The universe, being only one of an infinity of possible universes, need never have existed at all and is thus contingent and does not exist by the necessity of its own nature. ” be explained by how bad the explanation (god) is?That overwhelming history of failure has even moved some people to be very skeptical of our current favored explanations!Similarly, just because atoms are invisible does not mean that objects composed of atoms are also invisible. This may be a response given by certain creation-science advocates, but a theist who accepts evolution would not make such a response.A theory of heat that posits the existence of tiny particles leads to a search for those particles; a theory of heat based on God’s emanations leads nowhere. I agree that “God did it” is a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad “explanation” for complexity or, well, pretty much anything. But it does not fail merely because the theist has no explanation for his explanation (God).is based solely on the proposition that complexity needs a designer. So it comes down to the fact that everything science has explained, those explanations still need explanations, every one of them.Why does it have to be testable to be a good explanation? I think “God did it” coheres quite well with *my* background knowledge, and the background knowledge of billions of other theists around the world and throughout history.The property of “requires a cause” does not necessarily translate from the contents of the universe to the universe in total.That’s an unreasonably high standard for explanations!Explaining the fine-tuning of the universe to be life-permitting in the first place is an entirely different issue.” True, but the theist who starts off by saying that the pure complexity of the world, rather than the alleged fine tuning, is evidence for God already marks themselves out as a creation science advocate, since they would have anticipated the atheist’s answer that evolution explains complexity in the biological world.The best explanation for our world is an Intelligent Designer.” ATHEIST: “But then who designed the Designer?I am in no way convinced that you have killed this sacred cow – perhaps buzzed enough to make its ear twitch. It could refer to the onset of something in the form of a new configuration of pre-existing components, but it could also refer to the creation of an entity from absolute nothingness.But until you have exposed the fallacy of the “why is there something rather than nothing? The best explanation for our world is an Intelligent Designer.” ATHEIST: “We can account for such complexity.When I see the hairdryer out and say “My wife did it,” did that explanation “come from” some tradition? If the wifediddit explanations don’t come from a tradition, why think Godiddit explanations must come from a tradition?The reason that the details of the Standard Model of Particle Physics are accepted as good explanations for quantum phenomena is because these explanations are plausible, they are extremely testable, they have strong consistency with background knowledge, they come from a tradition (natural science) with great explanatory success, they are relatively simple, they offer much predictive novelty, and they have strong explanatory scope. dna day essay contest question This is not the case when God is invoked as an explanation: there is no plausible hope of explaining God, and so it is a sterile explanation.” This may be a response given by certain creation-science advocates, but a theist who accepts evolution would not make such a response.[But] explanations need not themselves be understood.It doesn’t that we have no explanation whatsoever for the explanations themselves. Ludwig Boltzmann explained heat by positing tiny, unobserved particles (which we now call atoms).Even if an infinite regress of explanations is impossible, who can decide at what depth the lowest explanation lies?:) Here’s atheist philosopher of science Peter Lipton: The why-regress is a feature of the logic of explanation that many of us discovered as children, to our parents’ cost.Ok, it has to do with the movements of the planets and our galaxy, and the universe… But just as you said, Luke – for all the other reasons there can’t be a God, that’s why I don’t believe. P1 is a principle I think is implied in the usual question “Why is there something rather than nothing? It can, of course, be challenged by arguing that we have no idea of what nothing is or that nothing is unstable etc. This is where the infinite regress objection is relevant. ATHEIST: But if you’re going to make an exception to the rule that everything has a cause, why not make the universe the exception? It doesn’t really have much content, so the atheist feels perhaps he or she has only been bested by the theist by him being able to “move a step up” – to name *something* as an explanation.This would lead immediately to an infinite regress of explanations.I agree with this for the most part, but I think that criticism of atheists is only well-earned if the theist’s argument is an inference to best explanation. The next part of the argument is messier, but usually runs along the following lines: C1/P3. God can create something out of nothing (creation ex nihilo premise). The theist has started out with a principle stating that something requires an explanation and nothing does not. Why do you posit the existence of a further entity–God–for which we have no proof? Demanding an explanation for god illustrates how simply moving up a level in itself isn’t all that great.Shibi's essay was titled 'The influence of genetics and environmental factors on cardiovascular disease'.He noted in his essay that some ethnicities have a genetic predisposition towards cardiovascular disease.So the problem with the atheist sacred cow of “Who designed the designer? “God did it” is what atheists should be trying to communicate.But if we say “God did it” comes from Lutheran Protestantism Christianity (a more specific, narrow tradition), we’ll run into fewer problems (though the Lutherans may have offered some failed explanations in the past, surely they’ve offered fewer than all the supernaturalists in the past).And what does it mean for an explanation to “come from” a tradition?Despite repeated attempts to explain all this to my atheist readers, many still insist that successful explanations must themselves be explained.I’m more convinced that, in this case, “God did it” would be a good explanation than I am that good explanations must be testable. Do you just mean to report why *atheists* won’t like “God did it” as an explanation?So you seem to be endorsing a general principle here: for any case of complexity, “God did it” is a terrible explanation. Consider this case of complexity: Tomorrow, we wake up and discover that the stars of the Milky Way have been rearranged and increased in brightness so that we can plainly read the text of John in the sky, even during the day. You respond: “Nope, sorry, ‘God did it’ is a terrible explanation of any case of complexity, and let me tell you why…” Why, in this case, is it not plausible to say God did it? Are you just reporting that it’s implausible to *you*, an atheist? Why think that a good explanation must be plausible to those who disbelieve in the entities postulated by the explanation?” THEIST: “Nobody.” (Or perhaps: “I don’t know.”) ATHEIST: “Well then you have explained nothing.”…the postulate of a designer or creator only raises the unanswerable question of who designed the designer or created the creator. have consistently failed to overcome this objection.Just because everything WITHIN the universe requires a cause does not mean that the universe ITSELF requires a cause.I think we should take into account the nature of the explanation. dna day essay contest question Read Lucretius’ De Rerum Naturae: completely naturalistic, and completely wrong. Either special relativity or quantum mechanics is wrong, since they contradict.Essays are read and evaluated by the Education Committee of the Human Genetics Society of Australasia.We replace one phenomenon with a Richard Dawkins, for instance, writes that to explain the machinery of life “by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing.” Why?The problem with offering “God did it” as an explanation is that such an explanation has low plausibility, is not testable, has poor consistency with background knowledge, comes from a tradition (supernaturalism) with extreme explanatory failure, lacks simplicity, offers no predictive novelty, and has poor explanatory scope.Year 11 student Shibi Doss has utilised his personal interest in cardiology in an essay that has placed third in the the HGSA Australasian DNA Day Essay Contest.Boltzmann’s theory was superior to earlier phenomenological theories of heat, even though his explanation (a mess of tiny particles) was itself totally unexplained.I can then outline why I think Goddidit is, as you say, a terrible explanation for anything. THEIST: “There is so much complexity in the world, it must have been designed by an Intelligent Designer.Who are they to decide where the causal chain begins?They usually look at it as a deduction from certain premises. But unless they are willing to claim that God is literally nothing (or non-existent) they have an infinite regress on their hands: God, being something, will in turn require an explanation. Even if Dawkins is right that evolutionary theory has refuted that argument (particularly in the area of biological complexity), it is irrelevant in the context of arguing the existence of God.It is true that we do not need to explain the causes of a drought in order to explain its effects, but the drought itself belongs to the same realm as the failed crop, and it remains explainable in principle.You still have to explain why the universe has just those conditions and laws that permit evolution to occur!Essays are expected to contain substantive, well-reasoned arguments indicative of a depth of understanding of the concepts related to the essay questions.Theists demand that the complexity of human eyeballs be explained, but assert that the complexity of a thinking, foreskin-obsessed deity needs no explanation.I have three worries about this: first, why think that this explanation has to “come from” any tradition at all?When you explain “the way science works,” you seem to imply that certain particles are by definition unexplainable, and that no scientist is interested in explaining the existence of these particles. Science will always seek explanations, even of fundamental particles, and the possibility of an infinite regress of explanations in no way whatsoever “kills science” as Craig blabbers.Read Aristotle’s naturalistic explanations of the natural world: he was really wrong very often. The entire history of science is a history of overturning wrong explanations.Science simply works within the segment of the chain of explanations that is currently detectable.Even for an infinite intellect, regresses of such explanations must end.These have been some of the for the particles that we have offered as explanations for the quantum phenomena.One of atheism’s sacred cows is the “Who designed the designer? Here’s how it works: THEIST: “There is so much complexity in the world, it must have been designed by an Intelligent Designer. dna day essay contest question But you are missing the prime motivation for the “God did it” explanation: The explanation itself, which you admit fails in all other respects, lacks evidentiality, etc. dna day essay contest question




Status: FreeWare
OS: Windows|Mac OS
Autors 2743
Update: 26-Nov-2017 18:05
Cat: Home »