>In a message dated 2/26/99 11:57:52 PM, Tim wrote:
><<well I have two responses.
>The first is: "See, I told you this was a module of the mind"
>The second I shouldn't really bother with given 1.
>Upon rereading your posting, Tim, I could easily feel insulted by the
>you express above. My assertions in this matter are referring to your
>science, not any theology or theoretical god.
>I would be happy to prove to you, mathematically, why there is not enough
>for evolutionary adaptation by Natural Selection to occur without some
>underlying organizing principles (like LAWS such as F=MA, E=MC2,
>Stewart Kaufman of the Santa Fe Institute is doing important work searching
>for the laws that govern massively complex systems. Please read his work.
>There is order in the Universe, even order for free.
>The theology and morality I'm seeking must be based in the best current
>science of the scientific community as well as my own Libertarian and
>Extropian point of view. I am willing to change it as new developments are
>proved. So far at least, God seems inevitable to me.
BTW, Adrian it's "Stuart" Kaufmann, not "Stewart".
Though I haven't read the book, I found the following comment from a reader on Amazon.com relevant to this thread.
A scientific argument supporting natural origins of life
This is a good book, elementary, accessible. Scientific readers seeking something tangible about which to debate and argue should seek out Kauffman's "The Origins of Order." Reading past reviews confirms one of my fears, though: some will take the presentation as an alternate reality, a 'glimpse of God,' a profound set of propositions posited and proved. The book is nothing like any of this--it is not a Bible, and its propositions are certainly not accepted by much of the scientific community, not yet. But it does present deep connections among highly interacting biological systems--genetic regulatory networks, for example--and simple mathematical models exhibiting rich and interesting behavior. Experiment will determine over time whether any of Kauffman's work is scientifically meaningful, and similar remarks hold for most of the output of the Santa Fe Institute. Is it innovative? Absolutely. Intriguing? Certainly. Provocative? Without a doubt--I'm rereading "The Origins of Order" for the second time. Is it correct? That--as well as the conclusions from the hundreds of disparate fields to which complexity has been applied--remains to be determined. But I do think one should read this book, then go off and think a lot more about what it means, maybe write a paper. But please, don't pray with this book; don't pray to any science book.