>
>"jonathan" write.instead.net> skrev i en meddelelse
>news:Wtjyk.26128$IB6.11126@bignews8.bellsouth.net...

>>
>> "Cary Kittrell" afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
>> news:gablva$5sj$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

>>> In article <48c93406$0$56791$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk> "thomas p."
>>> yahoo.com> writes:

>>>>
>>>> "Damien Valentine" gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>>>> news:1433408c-2124-479a-9193-6ae270a4f4b2@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Sep 11, 12:13 am, "thomas p." yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>>
>>>>> He expressed his religious beliefs. The fact that he is also a
>>>>> scientist
>>>>> does nothing to support the validity of those beliefs.

>>>>
>>>> I'm not even sure how these beliefs are particularly religious. As
>>>> far as I can tell, he's just swapping the vague word "God" for the
>>>> technical term "emergence", and hoping that makes everything better
>>>> somehow, all by itself.
>>>> ______________________________________________________-
>>>>
>>>> I think the hope is that nobody will notice that it is pseudoscientific
>>>> garbage.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>
>>>
>>> Well, not really. I'm currently halfway through the actual book
>>> (Kaffuman
>>> is never a page-turner) and the science is not at all questionable.

>>
>>
>> Right!
>>
>> He's a founder of Boolean networks, perhaps the most basic foundation
>> for the field of artificial intelligence, chaos theory and self
>> organization.
>> But he's a biologist first, and he's helped to create the entire notion
>> of the complex adaptive system. Which I believe to be essentially
>> an abstract mathematical model of an evolving system. He's
>> managed to put the Darwin we all know and love in completely
>> abstract terms. So it can be applied universally, which means
>> also to ....non-living....systems.
>>
>> A universal model of evolution ...or creation. His mathematics, is
>> showing the universe has the /inherent/ tendency to self organize.
>>
>>

>>>And
>>> insofar as the God here being one any Christian would care to claim,
>>> Kauffman's "God" makes the god of the Enlightenment Deists look like a
>>> tribal idol. Kauffman's god is purely what he sees as the restless,
>>> endlessly self-organizing nature of the material universe -- and nothing
>>> else. Nothing else.

>>
>> It's ability to create! Worshipping the processes of Nature as God!
>> Or more specifically the specific process of greatest importance.
>> Emergence!

>
>For what reason should a process be worshipped?
>