The function of death

Much of modern science falls under the natural philosophy of systemics.
That is to say it is not actually science in the classical sense.
Science is a tool for categorizing things. For discovering how they work.
Systemics is an attempt to collect these ideas into working systems.

The study of ecosystems or evolutionary paths may be considered systemics, even if it is sold as classical science.

Life systems, which would include many modern biological studies, falls into this category. Each individual aspect of biology is studying and pieced together to map a whole, functional system.
Each functional aspect is studied in detail, and the relation and function in tandem with those systems (again) is mapped.
Through this kind of thinking we are able to see all the various, myriad interactions between biological systems such as reproduction, the digestive process, cellular development, the immune system, and so on and so forth.
One are given a great deal of attention is the reproductive system. The functions and interaction of this system with others is extremely well mapped. We know how it effects the entire biology. We know what it is for.
This interest only makes sense. We want to understand our personal genesis.
What does not make sense, on the surface, is how death is rejected as part of this system.
Obviously death is important. Obviously death has profound effect on the individual in question, and on those who know them. But death is seen only as the end of the system, and is not credited with any function. Why is that?
I don't think the materialists who crowd the halls of the academe mean to suggest this is an open system (life). That death is somehow a release from this system. Nor do I even need to 'go there', myself.
No. I get the impression there is something that makes those very materialists (ie naturalists) extremely nervous about assigning a natural function to death.
Why would that be?
The simplified answer is that if death has a natural function within the system beyond the immediate (ie providing food for a predator/scavenger or fertilizer for plants), it has some very uncomfortable implications for the wider world view of these folks.
How so?
Let's envision for a second that death is the mechanism by which genetics improve upon themselves. That a process known as 'natural selection' and 'mutation' results in real improvements in the organisms undergoing this process. We might call this process 'evolution'. In such a process/system we may consider ourselves 'more evolved' (ie superior in design/function) to a more primitive (much older) example of our species. This is, of course, the stance of modern 'science' (ie systemics).
So, in order for this system to work/function properly one generation must end and another begin. They will overlap, mix and spread the desirable traits. The mechanism to determine these traits being the environment itself. The algorithm of life simply adapts and thrives. A perfect piece of self improving, self propagation code.
Improving to what end?
Well, this is where the materialist wants the conversation to end. They will simply posit 'stuff happens'. They will accuse you of 'promiscuous teleology' or seeing a correlation as a connection. They will shrug away the concept that this self improving, self propagating code simply is (just so) and continues with no direction or function beyond those apparent.
But that's the problem isn't it? The 'self improvement' IS apparent.
Progress and improvement seems to be the result of evolution. Evolution is linear, or progressive - not circular and reductive.
That is to say the 'system' of inanimate matter is not linear, but recursive. Sand becomes rock, breaks into stone and becomes sand. The water cycle. Chemical bonding. So on and so forth.
Life is different. It improves.
To what end?
That is the forbidden question.
It is, of course, a 'why' question.
Comrade professor and the commissars of the academe do NOT like 'why'.
Presumably because it could be applied to their bloated tenures and ever continuing 'education'.
'Why death' is a naughty one indeed.
What does it show us? 
A very big 'boo boo' in the grand theory of 'shit happens' (ie the implicitly nihilistic materialist mindset of the academe and elites).
Apparently -if death is assigned a proper biological function - life has some sort of meaning, even on the physical level.
Apparently whatever the source of the information found in our genetic code, it has a goal that can be achieved by applying the genetic algorithm, itself full of CONTINGENCY, to the problem of conscious existence. By applying time and using nature itself as a mould or limiter.
Apparently this little code of proteins has the ability to transfer some essential, central functionality FORWARD in time to some end purpose.
Apparently, and so far, we can tell at least one of these functions is consciousness itself. The ability to ask 'why should this be'.
Well then!
Why should this be?

Aliens and atheism

For a few decades now extra terrestrial life has been a common area of conflict in the dialogue between Theism and Anti-theism / Atheism.
It is an absurd but somehow interesting back and forth; even if only because it deals with angels, aliens, demons, and extra dimensional entities.
It's a fun, spooky, weird topic.
A good fit for the Faustian, methinks.


On a friend's recent blog post at EGNORANCE (about the subject of the new RC Pope Francis, of all things) this was brought up (once again).
So, I thought a word or two was due on the subject:

The argument so far....

Atheist/Materialists/Positivists in 1970's: The apparent lack of life in our solar system makes the idea of (a) God absurd. Why would He create such a massive universe just to leave it empty? Obviously the answer is: God is not there.

Theists in 1970's: With the Lord God, all things are possible. We believe in intelligences other than mankind. They are self evident. These intelligences may or may not be little green men living on Mars or some other local planet, but they are here with us in our universe. Life is part of God's plan.


Atheist/Materialists/Positivists in 2010's: The possibility of abundant life in the universe is a clear indication that the religious teachings about God, and even belief in His existence, are dangerously delusional. Life beyond our earth would be final proof than mankind is just a random, accidental, unexceptional, run of the mill organism on a tiny, insignificant (?)  planet on the edge of a unimportant(?) galaxy.

Theists in the 2010's: With the Lord God, all things are possible. We have always believed in intelligences other than mankind. They are self evident.  A discovery of unknown / alien life would no more effect the Abrahamic faiths than the discovery of a new type of animal on earth. God created the Cosmos (the Heavens and the Earth), not just Earth and not just mankind.
ALL life and everything is part of God's plan to us, the theists. 

Final Score:

Materialists 0 / 2 Theists
(Points rewarded for coherence and consistency of position)

So what do we take away from all this besides a chuckle?
Nothing too profound, really.
Nothing that a few minutes thought on the subject would not reveal.
Pretty much the same thing we see with most of these  scientistic / materialistic arguments.

Simply put, we see that  the materialist argument has been force to adapt by means of a reversal of position  (now conceding the distinct possibility of other intelligence agents in our cosmos, in this specific case).

The theistic position, on the other hand,  is consistent: Other intelligences exists in our cosmos.
We see the ideological strand of the atheistic and theistic creeds: Nihilistic 'insignificance' and 'randomness' pitted against wonder, purpose, love and hope. No contest..
And finally we see an effort to prove our experiential reality an illusion, which would of course refute ALL science as subjective experience and render the entire materialistic argument once again (self) refuted. Non coherent and thus nonsensical.

This is contrasted with the entirely coherent position that God's self proclaimed mission in one of life and that the limits are His to set.
Whether or not you're religious or even believe in God I am sure, my dear readers, that you can see the contrast between the totally polar realities that these two world views render.
Choose your truth carefully.
It's quite possibly the biggest choice you'll ever make.... at least in this reality.

Taco-smology

 I was hungry when I first wrote this, as I am now...
And so you shall suffer a supper analogy!

 The Taco - according to....


Darwinism: The really is no such thing as a 'taco', but simply variations on a evolving theme of sandwich or flat bread foods. From the regions producing grains and corns came a need to eat more efficiently and faster than other workers and this flat bread meal was assembled by the mechanisms of various food group mutations, combined with the dietary selection of the workers - eliminating the less tasty and desirable taco models from the tortilla pool as the less tasty taco eaters perished without reproducing.
All this talk of restaurants, chefs, and reviews (and even 'Mexico'!!! LOL!!) is absolute childish fantasy. Tacos just happen.

Intelligent Design: Obviously the Taco is a designed and functional food stuff. It has within it a complexity and interdependency of parts (ie the cilantro and the onions in perfect harmony). There is a taco, the taco eater knows this. How the demand and food stuff available shaped the physical form is only half the equation.
What about the intelligence behind the taco?
ID is not creationism: We concede the taco has adapted and evolved - but to a plan, a purpose, a RECIPE! If people want to believe in Mexico, we say the data supports the case for a recipe and a chef... Could there be a Mexico? That is matter of personal faith.

Creationism: Thank you Lord God for allowing me to live in such an interesting time and place where there are tasty nutritious foods called tacos and diverse and interesting lands such as Mexico to explore.
Oh! And thanks for the  Cervezas  too. Here's to you Big Guy!

NASA designer fired for his belief in Intelligent Design?

The claims of a top level scientist terminated from NASA's JPL probe projects are that he was 'fired' due to his position on Intelligent design. Apparently his Anti-Darwin heresy was too much for some of his colleagues who complained he was 'evangelizing' at work.
He is now suing the organization for prejudiced/wrongful dismissal.
He has quite the backing, and it seems this case could set precedent.
I wonder where the ACLU is on this one?
From FOXNEWS 


Former NASA specialist claims he was fired over intelligent design

Published March 11, 2012

| Associated Press ]

LOS ANGELES –  NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory has landed robotic explorers on the surface of Mars, sent probes to outer planets and operates a worldwide network of antennas that communicates with interplanetary spacecraft.

Its latest mission is defending itself in a workplace lawsuit filed by a former computer specialist who claims he was demoted -- and then let go -- for promoting his views on intelligent design, the belief that a higher power must have had a hand in creation because life is too complex to have developed through evolution alone.

David Coppedge, who worked as a "team lead" on the Cassini mission exploring Saturn and its many moons, alleges that he was discriminated against because he engaged his co-workers in conversations about intelligent design and handed out DVDs on the idea while at work. Coppedge lost his "team lead" title in 2009 and was let go last year after 15 years on the mission.

Opening statements are expected to begin Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court after two years of legal wrangling in a case that has generated interest among supporters of intelligent design. The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian civil rights group, and the Discovery Institute, a proponent of intelligent design, are both supporting Coppedge's case.

"It's part of a pattern. There is basically a war on anyone who dissents from Darwin and we've seen that for several years," said John West, associate director of Center for Science and Culture at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. "This is free speech, freedom of conscience 101."

[pullquote]

The National Center for Science Education, which rejects intelligent design as thinly veiled creationism, is also watching the case and has posted all the legal filings on its website.

"It would be unfortunate if the court took what seems to be a fairly straightforward employment law case and allowed it to become this tangled mess of trying to adjudicate scientific matters," said Josh Rosenau, NCSE's programs and policy director. "It looks like a pretty straightforward case. The mission that he was working on was winding down and he was laid off."

Coppedge's attorney, William Becker, says his client was singled out by his bosses because they perceived his belief in intelligent design to be religious. Coppedge had a reputation around JPL as an evangelical Christian and other interactions with co-workers led some to label him as a Christian conservative, Becker said.

In the lawsuit, Coppedge says he believes other things also led to his demotion, including his support for a state ballot measure that sought to define marriage as limited to heterosexual couples and his request to rename the annual holiday party a "Christmas party."

"David had this reputation for being a Christian, for being a practicing one. He did not go around evangelizing or proselytizing. But if he found out that someone was a Christian he would say, `Oh that's interesting, what denomination are you?"' Becker said.

"He's not apologizing for who he is. He's an evangelical Christian."

In an emailed statement, JPL dismissed Coppedge's claims. In court papers, lawyers for the California Institute of Technology, which manages JPL for NASA, said Coppedge received a written warning because his co-workers complained of harassment. They also said Coppedge lost his "team lead" status because of ongoing conflicts with others.

Caltech lawyers contend Coppedge was one of two Cassini technicians and among 246 JPL employees let go last year due to planned budget cuts.

While the case has attracted interest because of the controversial nature of intelligent design, it is at its heart a straightforward discrimination case, said Eugene Volokh, a professor of First Amendment law at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law.

"The question is whether the plaintiff was fired simply because he was wasting people's time and bothering them in ways that would have led him to being fired regardless of whether it was about religion or whether he was treated worse based on the religiosity of his beliefs," said Volokh. "If he can show that, then he's got a good case."

Coppedge, who began working for JPL as a contractor in 1996 and was hired in 2003, is active in the intelligent design sphere and runs a website that interprets scientific discoveries through the lens of intelligent design. His father authored an anti-evolution book and founded a Christian outreach group.

He is also a board member for Illustra Media, a company that produces video documentaries examining the scientific evidence for intelligent design. The company produces the videos that Coppedge was handing out to co-workers, said Becker, his attorney.

His main duties at JPL were to maintain computer networks and troubleshoot technical problems for the mission. In 2000, he was named "team lead," serving as a liaison between technicians and managers for nearly a decade before being demoted in 2009.

He sued in April 2010 alleging religious discrimination, retaliation and harassment and amended his suit to include wrongful termination after losing his job last year.

Coppedge is seeking attorney's fees and costs, damages for wrongful termination and a statement from the judge that his rights were violated, said Becker.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/11/former-nasa-specialist-claims-was-fired-over-intelligent-design/print#ixzz1oudM7Otj