Intelligent design / creationism

[IrishEyes]

Maybe I didn't get the tongue-in-cheek font working correctly...

 

Quite frankly, that's one of the biggest problems at this site. I've been begging Tormod for months to add voice recognition software so I could tell when Freethinker is joking, and he'll know when I am, as I so very often forget to add my smilies. Well, with so many new ones to choose from, it's getting easier, until Tormod starts screaming about bandwidth...

 

I think one of the reasons we are all here is to learn. Only a very select few are here for thepure joy of sharing all of the knowledge the rest of us are seeking. (TONGUE IN CHEEK!) I have listened to arguments from both sides, and I really don't see how either side will "win", or why there has to be a battle. Many wonderful things have been done in the name of 'science', as well as many horrible things. Many wonderful things have been done in the name of religion, as well as many horrible things. Will science and religion ever peacefully coexist? Probably not, at least not as long as there are people ON BOTH SIDES that are unwilling to accept that the other side may be right. Are you more right because you claim logic? Or am I more right because I claim faith? Does it really matter? It's not my life's goal to convert you, or anyone else that has no desire to hear my religion. Why should it be anyone else's goal to make sure that I am converted?

[pmaust]

Anybody ever hear of this guy? Anthony Flew. ;) :) :) Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)

[Freethinker]

I'll accept an answer based on the law of probability.

OK, let me try the "north of north" thing for you again.

 

We exist in our particular timespace continuum. Are there others? We don't know. And it is highly "probable" that we not only never will, but plain and simple CAN'T ever find out. It is "probable" that if there are others, their physical laws could be so different as to lack any ability to share them. Thus no interface between them can happen. (though gravity wave info between branes offers some possibilities) No common data exchange possible.

 

If we "look back" into our timespace, we observe an event we call the Big Bang. Just as if we were to "walk (back)" towards the north pole we would reach the point we observe as the North Pole. And just as the North Pole is the furthest NORTH we can walk (any steps after reaching it requires that we walk SOUTH), the furthest back we can "see" is the BB. Once we go back in time to the BB, the only direction that exists in our timespace is FORWARD in time.

 

Thus no THING exists prior to our timespace/ the BB, because THINGS (our physical existence and everything THING in it) came into existence at the BB.

 

Just because some particular set of words can be used to form an interogatory sentence, does not mean that there is an answer to it. Just like the other thread asking whether an all powerful being can create a rock so large it can't lift it. Was it structured as an interogatory sentence? Yes it was. But does it have an answer? Nope. It is NOT a valid question.

[Freethinker]

But Stonehenge is a ORGANIZED presentation of rocks. the otherwise highly complex random arrangement of material is organized into a much SIMPLER form.

It sounds like you're saying that an automobile is a great simplification over the highly organized structure of unrefined ore in twelve countries, chemicals from crude oil to make plastic, and so forth.

Actually you have it exactly backwards. I very specifically aligned "ORGANIZED" with human effort while the surrounding natural arrangement is "highly complex". As such an auto, being made by humans, is "ORGANIZED" while the raw materials are "highly complex".

 

But other than that, yes you are correct. "an automobile is a great simplification over the ("highly complex") structure of unrefined ore in twelve countries, chemicals from crude oil to make plastic, and so forth".

then we come to the eye, or the brain, and they insist there has to be a DESIGNER, exercising INTENTION, and using INTELLIGENCE to make one.... It's hard to use the word "design" without the implication of a "designer".... Since their god is mainly a big GUY, HE has to act like we do, and since things like watches almost never happen without a designer in nature, by extension, neither can anything like life.

That is my point actually. we recognize a watch as being of intentional intellectual interaction because it SIMPLIFIES, not because it shows random complexity. The sum total of the metals used are far less complex than the sum total of the ores and rocks from which they came. Less total mass, less total number of elements, highly simplified patterns.

 

Taking again Stonehenge. If you took an overhead pict of a large area which included Stonehenge and were to catalog everything. What would stick out as Organized and Simplified (designed)? The mass of rocks scattered on the ground at various depths in the soil with no predictable arrangement? Or the few rocks in a limited area with predictable arrangements?

 

We recognize Stonehenge as Stonehenge not because of the highly complex randomized rocks around the entire area. But because of the simplified, organized few. We recognize DESIGN based on the few organized, not the overall complexity. In fact it is only because of the LACK of design we see in the entire rest of the geography surrounding the few stacked stones, that we recognize the INTENTIONAL DESIGN of the rocks we call Stonehenge.

[Freethinker]

wondering what Freethinker will post next

As predictable as I am?

[Freethinker]

Anybody ever hear of this guy? Anthony Flew. ;) :) :) Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)

Yes I have met and had discussions with him. I understand that he has become a Deist. Yes that was a surprise.

[geko]

Are you more right because you claim logic? Or am I more right because I claim faith? Does it really matter? It's not my life's goal to convert you, or anyone else that has no desire to hear my religion. Why should it be anyone else's goal to make sure that I am converted?

 

I think this is a good point you're making here Irish. Attempting to convert other people away from a religious belief system is something i stopped a long time ago. Not least of which is that i find it fruitless because religous beleivers are so tightly locked into their belief system by faith that it's damn near impossible to snap them out of it, but also that after seeing a quote by a 17th century philosopher and religious thinker (Baruch Spinoza) ive tried to live by it (difficult as it may be at times). The quote is that "I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them"

 

But having said that, after reading in your post that "many wonderful things have been done in the name of 'science', as well as many horrible things. Many wonderful things have been done in the name of religion, as well as many horrible things", i find myself in a bit of a quiver.

 

It sounds to me as though you're trying to qualify religion in the vein that "yes, it's been hard, we've done some probably regrettable things but things are getting better" This is rubbish, sorry. Religion stoll, punished, tortured, murdered, waged war and made people live in fear for centuries. They done this for absolute power over the masses, nothing more. This i find damn near inexcusable. Not least of which because they done it by promising people their greatest desires yet having no intention of delivering it to them. How rude can you get?

[Freethinker]

Only a very select few are here for thepure joy of sharing all of the knowledge the rest of us are seeking.

Finally, you say something factual about me! (TONGUE IN CHEEK!)

Many wonderful things have been done in the name of 'science', as well as many horrible things. Many wonderful things have been done in the name of religion, as well as many horrible things.

There is one VERY BIG difference however. When "horrible things" are done "in the name of science", it is NOT because of any specific tenet which some agreed source of Scientific laws has published. While when "horrible things" are done "in the name of religion", if the religion is revelations based and the "horrible things" that are done are spelled out in that source of revelations, then that religion IS DIRECTLY to blame. e.g. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and witch burnings.

Will science and religion ever peacefully coexist? Probably not, at least not as long as there are people ON BOTH SIDES that are unwilling to accept that the other side may be right.

Boy, so many things being admitted to here! Don't know where to start! Wish I had the time to go back and find all the times you have claimed that science can prove your religious beliefs. And now you specifcally state that the two will supply contradictory answers and one might be "unwilling to accept that the other side may be right".

Are you more right because you claim logic? Or am I more right because I claim faith? Does it really matter?

Ask the kids that die every year because a parent chose faith over logic.

 

"Claiming" logic does not prove that they reached a logical conclusion. Nor does applying a logical process to erroneous info produce an accurate answer. But plain and simple YES, logic will virtually always increase the chance of an accurate answer over a faith based approach.

It's not my life's goal to convert you, or anyone else that has no desire to hear my religion. Why should it be anyone else's goal to make sure that I am converted?

Love.

[infamous]

I'm sure that most of you know by now that I am a believer, and I will confess my faith to anyone willing to listen. I fear however, that allowing debate about Gods existence, pros. or cons. on this forum might distract from any usefull advances in scientific discussion. I love to talk about my faith, but it will not gain anything if there are no accepted grounds or foundations on which to build. A discussion about God will go nowhere if both parties can't agree at least on his existence. The relevance of God in scientific debate is not "at least in my opinion" neccessary for us to understand scientific principles. At the least we need to develope some tolerance of one another"s views without calling some witch burners, or others nonbelieving evil doers if we are to continue to allow these topics. Personally I'm here at this forum to study science, I can wait for Sunday to go to church.

[TINNY]

still, i haven't found a successfull answer to the watchmaker argument. matter came from nothingness during what we call the big bang. Nothing before that. Even time is created by the big bang. something moving necessitates time, and thus cause-and-effect. Bertrand Russell once argued that the watchmaker argument could also deny god because there must be a god-creator and the creator of the god-creator. But that argument only applies when there is cause and effect, or time. the creator of time is eternal, free from cause and effect, manifesting absolute freewill to create.

[TINNY]

As for the design issue, I hope there are some who believe in intelligent design who could show me exactly what gives away design by an intelligent entity. When is an object designed by an intelligent designer? What are the characteristics?

When only a certain set of results are obtained in a situation of random possibility, repeatedly. Like the specific 23 amino acids. (Um, not sure tho!)

Some of them say that the entire universe is designed. Interesting. Add to this that we design things too, and all you have is a universe where everything is designed, and nothing else - ever. So, how is it then possible to see the difference between design and non-design, when the former is the only thing that exists? (Except for the designer/creator itself, of course, since that would cause uncomfortable problems with the whole concept.)

i think my previous post satisfies your question. Saying that we are also designers is just semantics. Typical when there is cause and effect. We would do something, and that results in something else. And thus, we are designers.

[Tim_Lou]

the law of probability only acts as a theory in this situation.

there is no statistical or experimental data to confirm a certain probability...

 

it is not known if probability such as the chance of formation of living beings is right or wrong.

[pmaust]

Yes I have met and had discussions with him. I understand that he has become a Deist. Yes that was a surprise.

 

The Deist part is what surprises me. But, it raises a question in my mind. Personally, I am comfortable with being a man without a belief. I am cautious and skeptical about evolution yet I don't believe that there is a god. Nor, have I ruled out the possibility of either theory. But, if there were to be some scientific breakthrough that happened tomorow that totally ruined the possibility that living things could not possibly occur as a result of natural selection or random processes would I assume there must be god? No! It would simply be, oh well, back to the drawing board.

 

In all fairness to Mr. Flew, it may be that he is a Deist more metaphorically than actually. I have no idea since I haven't read anything from him which discusses the matter.

 

The theory of evolution is a good theory. It is a work in progress however. Sometimes, I think we ask to much of it. It seems that now days we want answers right now! In some cases it appears that folks want to exploit the theory for their own personal agendas.

 

The science is still young. In another hundred years our views of evolution may be radically different than they are today. If we could live so long, we very well could look back and see how primative our thinking was back then. Look at how many years elapsed between Newton and Einstein. They both taught us about gravity but in very different ways. Interestingly enough, we still don't know everything there is to know about gravity.

 

Anyway, it's late. My brain is fried and I'll probably look back at this post tomorrow in total horror. :) Don't be too hard on me!

 

Cheers!

 

Paul

[Tormod]

if there were to be some scientific breakthrough that happened tomorow that totally ruined the possibility that living things could not possibly occur as a result of natural selection or random processes would I assume there must be god? No!

Huh? Go to bed, my friend. ;)

 

The theory of evolution is a good theory. It is a work in progress however.

Show me one single scientific theory that can not be considered a "work in progress" in some way or another.

 

But your comment is a typical misconception. Evolution is very much a fact. It is the processes which drive evolution that constitute theories. Ie, how do species evolve? Bu survival of the fittest, luck, or divine intervention?

 

Sometimes, I think we ask to much of it. It seems that now days we want answers right now! In some cases it appears that folks want to exploit the theory for their own personal agendas.

Who are asking too much of it? I'd say it is those who vehemently oppose any idea that evolution actually happens. I don't know what you are thinking of here. Evolution explains how species evolve, it can be studied theoretically and in the field, predictions can be made and tested.

 

Now, how the results are used and interpreted is a different matter. I can agree that some people tend to ignore the observations made when studying evolution, or twist them so that they get more food for their ID/Creationism cannons.

 

The science is still young. In another hundred years our views of evolution may be radically different than they are today.

Evolution is not a science but a process. The study of evolution is done within numerous fields of science.

 

Anyway, it's late. My brain is fried and I'll probably look back at this post tomorrow in total horror. :) Don't be too hard on me!

Not what you wanted, then. :)

[infamous]

The more things change, the more they remain the same. Todays proofs will be tomorrows rubbish, ready to be cast into antiquities trashcans.

[TINNY]

infamous, i think the trend is more like a curve. something you would get for f(x)=x^1/2. so right now i hink things are getting realy accurate and we will just get slowly closer to the truth whatever that may be.

[infamous]

Tinny; I agree with your assessment completely. It's just somewhat arrogant however for some to claim that they have attained. I think we agree that this curve is hyperbolic in nature and reaches to infinity if we are to be honest. The question is, where are we on this curve. We may be quite astonished to discover that we have only slightly begun. We must be careful not to think ourselves intelligent in our own conceits. Have a good day Tinny.