Scientific Knowledge Increases a Person's Interest In Life More So Than Religion Does

Thank You Con, Side Shifting a Little:Firstly I will take some time Rebutting Con's Points: Con's Points 1: <Second Law of Thermodynamics became the evolutionary engine throughout the universe. > The Second Law Of Thermodynamics (Entropy) may have an influence on the Entropy of the Universe, but at a Biological Level, it has far less importance. It only means we need to keep consuming food to give us energy, which about sums up it's importance to biological Evolution. Since Biological Evolution on Earth is an open system, Earth receives plentiful energy from the Sun, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply and thus the rest of Con's considerations regarding this law and Biological Evolution doesn't apply. So as far as Evolution of life on Earth is concerned, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is non-sequitur. Why? It is a law of Thermodynamics/Heat in a closed system only. It simply states that in a closed system, where heat energy is not being added, the heat will dissipate until it reaches a state of energy equilibrium or simply the heat will fade, thus it is also known as the Law of Atrophy. Though it is not a definite law, in that it can be broken and is broken many times a second somewhere in the universe. Such as in a gas, if a molecule of lower energy strikes a molecule of higher energy and imparts some of its energy to the higher energy molecule, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is Broken. This can happen if the impact is made at a particular timing of movement, and this likely happens billions of times a millisecond in the universe, so it is not an unbreakable law and does not apply to Evolutionary Biology on Planet Earth as this is not a Closed System. So there is also a Scale Of Reference Error in Con's Statement. What affects the Universe in a certain way and time scale, say many Billions of years, does not have the same affect on the life on individual planets who measure time in thousands and millions of years. 2: <Thomas Jefferson (one of the founding Fathers of the US), he discovered, not developed, this primeval working function, and he claimed a polished version within the scope of humanity, giving it the label of Unalienable Rights as in “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” > Thomas Jefferson was using this to sway opinion his way with the term Unalienable Rights, yet no such Unalienable Rights actually exist in the real world, it was a political ploy, not an actual assertion on reality. The full sentence from Thomas Jefferson was: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”Source: http://www.brainyquote.com... This is an Assertion of Self-Evidence Fallacy, as Jefferson gave no evidence to support his Assertion and what is Self-Evident to the Asserter (Jefferson) is not necessarily Self-Evident to the reader/listener. Jefferson's Assertion of Unalienable Rights is Baseless and so is any Hypothesis based on his statement. He was referring to a political contention with the British form of Government. “Certain forms of argument from self-evidence are considered fallacious or abusive in debate. For example, if a proposition is claimed to be self-evident, it is an argumentative fallacyto assert that disagreement with the proposition indicates misunderstanding of it. “ Source: https://www.princeton.edu... 3: <“Constructional Law for the animate in the evolution of life, relative to facilitating movement, is dependent on all “Life” having the freedom (“Liberty”) in the pursuit ofsurvival (positive-feedback); otherwise, there is no life. Positive-feedback for humans, can be summarized to include the emotion of “Happiness,” in addition, survival is a prerequisite for “Happiness.” > Adrian Bejan Constructional Law has been touted by Bejan for more than 20 years now and has not been accepted by the Scientific community as it suffers from the same Fallacies as the Fine Tuning argument, in that Bejan goes from stating it explains rivers and root systems, but then goes onto attaching it to psychological issues like happiness. So he has extended it into realms that make it into a False Analogy Fallacy. He should leave it at river systems and roots and not try and make it appear as a Snake Oil cure for Cancer. Publishing it in a book, does not make it Scientific, nor mean that a single real scientist actually accepts it as Valid. So it is still not verified as being Scientific and it is not Science. Adrian Bejan is only trained as an Engineer not a biologist, thus his theory can only be applied to Engineering, until a Biologist confirms it has biological merit. Constructional Law, is an Engineers Explanation for What he does not Fully Understand, as Engineers are not Biologists, Bejan should get Biologists to verify his claims, so far they are again Baseless. BTW: Bejan does not believe in God as the Designer for his Constructional Law, he believes he has discovered a Design Law that Excludes any Designer. He calls it Design without a Designer. So his Hypothesis may have some credibility, but the Jury is still undecided. So Constructional Theory Denies God and thus has nothing to do with Religion. It is similar to saying Design comes from Fractal Geometry which was once my own field of study. A fair Critique of Bejan's Book “http://sigaloninspired.soup.io... Point 4: < If a society does not have a good understanding of this moral force, it could fall apart. How long could a society function or achieve Happiness without morality? > Con treats Morality as if it was a divine set of Tenets, in fact, different societies have completely different moralities, whereas once in humans and possibly still in some isolated cultures, infanticide and genocide are still viewed as moral. Morality evolved from the environmental and social constraints on a population, though as a global community forms, this global community is developing a consistent set of morals through Consensus. With such organizations as the United Nations standing in judgement of organizing the consensus of World Morality discussions. “Kitcher (2006a,b; 2011) has proposed a three-stage account of the evolution of morality. It begins with the evolution of an early but fragile form of psychological altruism among hominins in the context of “coalition games” in mixed adult groups. The social structure would have been similar to that of contemporary chimpanzees and bonobos, where cooperation among the relatively weak (or those in weak stages of life) is beneficial to them, but strategic calculation is infeasible. These conditions may have led from simpler forms of biological altruism developed through kin selection to the evolution of a psychological altruistic disposition involving “a blind tendency to respond to the preferences of another animal with whom you might engage in cooperative activity,” as a simple but effective mechanism for promoting advantageous participation in coalitions and subcoalitions (Kitcher 2006b). (This is the ‘indiscriminate’ altruism discussed in the previous sub-section.)“ Source: http://plato.stanford.edu... “The first step is to draw a clear distinction between our morally-relevant evolved dispositions and our shared moral code. The latter does not have a direct evolutionary origin. It is a cultural product, and is the outcome of many different factors. Let's now consider some of the most important of these. First, to some degree, our moral codes are simply reflections of our evolved human nature. A good example relates to incest. Many cultures (though not all) have formal moral rules proscribing incest. It is tempting to ask: If our aversion to incest has an evolutionary origin, why would we need a moral injunction against it? But this question raises a possibility: Maybe we don'tneed a moral injunction against incest. The vast majority of people just don't want to engage in this form of sexual expression; they feel an acute and pronounced disgust at the prospect. So, in this instance at least, formalized morality may simply embody or reflect people's values, values they would have anyway. “ Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com... My own Argument: What makes Science fascinating is Con's final statement: Imagine being the person who makes such a discovery??? Anybody can be considered a Scientist, All you need is an original idea (Argument/Concept) and gather some Data (Evidence) to support your Hypothesis (Concept + Evidences) and present it to a relevant Scientific Organization for testing, such as a University. They will do their best there to disprove your Hypothesis. As the way science proves a Hypothesis is by trying to disprove it, which they have tried to do to Evolution for 160 years without success.If the scientists at the University cannot disprove your Hypothesis, they will pass your Hypothesis as a package, with all the evidence you discovered and all that they tried to disprove it with to other universities around the world and relevant scientific bodies.If they all Fail to Disprove it, then it becomes a Theory!Thus you are now a Scientist and get to name your own Theory.Regardless of whether you were a scientist previously.This is why the Constructional Theory Con mentioned is not a True Theory at all and why Creationism is not a Theory, as none of them have been properly tested and verified by Scientists. So neither the Constructional Theory, nor Creationism are Scientific Theories.Back to Con for some interesting rebuttals.