Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[Sapiens]

Order the world implies design. Design implies intelligence. Intelligence implies conscious self aware intelligent designer.

No!

While design requires order, the opposite is not true, e.g., order does not require design. Once the chain breaks there the rest of your analysis is meaningless.

 

[Sapiens]

... Why these laws exist? Why they have the form that they do? how they exist or function? laws do create specific order in the world but the question remains, what is the origin of those laws itself or how they came to existence

Perhaps "why" is an irrelevant question. "What" and "how" are demonstrable and useful.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

1. Do you think that Mary learns something new when she sees color for the first time?

No. She experiences something new. Mary, if an expert on vision, also has vast knowledge of light. So she already knows green exists though she has never seen green.

2. Do you think that Mary, on the basis of her complete knowledge of neurophysiology and vision, could determine that the color was green by performing, for example, a brain scan of herself to determine which parts of her brain have been activated?

No. The same parts of the brain are active in perceiving green.

Your argument fails because you start out by saying or implying that it's not true that "there is absolute truth is all matters."

You are arguing that the above statement is absolutely true. By making this statement, you are tacitly accepting that absolute truth exists.

I do not deny, in this context that "absolute truth" does not exist. You are twisting my words. Absolute truth does not necessarily exist in all matters. Instead of redirecting my rebuttal, why don't you address it directly?

In many matters, such as science, psychology or philosophy, one must refrain from believing we have obtained "absolute truth"; because once one has determined that we have "absolute truth" (real or imagined), learning and discovery in that particular discipline ceases. That would be a loss to mankind.

 

[gnostic]

Perhaps "why" is an irrelevant question. "What" and "how" are demonstrable and useful.

Yes, I agree that science always explain the "what" and "how".

But sometimes, not always, knowing or understanding the "what" and "how", we might be able to determine the "why".

But knowing the "why" doesn't mean there is a "who".

I think that the "who" is even less relevant than the "why". That's why I think science can explain the what, how and even the why, all without the needs of some silly superstitions or beliefs in God, Creator or Designer.

 

[Skwim]

Perhaps "why" is an irrelevant question. "What" and "how" are demonstrable and useful.

"Why" has been the genesis of many scientific endeavors, although it's generally rephrased as a "how" question, Waterson's cartoon here aside. . .

​

But substitute Calvin's "why" with "how" and his question sounds a bit awry. It doesn't seem to be looking for the same answer.

​

"Why" generally carries less confidence and more suspicion, and looks for a reason for being. Whereas "how" more or less recognizes or assumes the reason for being is looking for the way, means, or manner.


.

 

[NoorNoor]

That is not my question. My question is whether God used some pre-existing materials to create the Universe. You seem to imply that He did not. So, He made the Universe out of nothing. is that correct?

The problem with infinite regress is the reproduction of the exact same question with every answer in a continual series of infinitely cascading dependencies.
Your question is like what material were used to create the material? The question would keep shifting backwards infinitely. If we agree that beyond the beginning, matter and physical laws were absent, then we can't say, what material were used to create the universe. In this case, The beginning would depend on a cause not prior existence of physical matter.

My question does not imply anything of the sort. Remember, I am a supporter of the block universe theory of time, so I do not really need to tackle with things like causes, beginnings or anything like that. This interpretation of time get rid of all your arguments, at once.

But I am curious. Suppose that I do not invoke it. Just for fun. What is the problem with infinite regress, if any?

The problem with that view (no beginning) is that any point would equally have infinite past/future. In other words, Any point would be exactly equal to any point which implies a static universe. this is not true. Observed progression/ changes necessitate a starting point.

Nonetheless, I always thought About time as a line from A (starting point) to B (end point). Present is a point that can only move forward along the line. Beyond time, all points along the line (past and future) exist, what varies is the location of the present point along the line (spacetime). But as mentioned above, for the present to experience a change, a beginning is required otherwise any point along the line would be equal to any other point. All present points would be exactly the same.

In any case, the block universe theory is not a scientific theory but rather a philosophical approach.

 

[McBell]

None, but that doesn't mean the universe appeared without a cause.

Your question imply a need for infinite regression or an existence of something before the beginning of its own existence. Creationism is about an absolute beginning of all what is physical (which necessarily needs or dependent on a cause). The first cause itself, would not be physical and without any need for prior cause. The word "prior" itself wouldn't apply in realm where nothing physical exist.

So it is YOU who claim that everything came from nothing...

 

[NoorNoor]

So it is YOU who claim that everything came from nothing...

No, this is not my claim. cosmologists claim that before the big bang, matter, physical laws, spacetime didn't exist.

 

[Skwim]

No, this is not my claim. cosmologists claim that before the big bang, matter, physical laws, spacetime didn't exist.

Actually, they don't. They claim they don't know what existed before the BB.


.

 

[NoorNoor]

Perhaps "why" is an irrelevant question. "What" and "how" are demonstrable and useful.

No, "why" comes first. "Why" brings an understanding, then "what & how" follow.

If we consider Newton's apple, newton didn't wonder about the weight or speed of the apple. He wondered why that apple always descend perpendicularly to the ground. After the notion of gravitation came into his mind, then "what & how" followed.

 

[NoorNoor]

No!

While design requires order, the opposite is not true, e.g., order does not require design. Once the chain breaks there the rest of your analysis is meaningless.

Why?

If you consider an example of a building or a machine, you would see order (vs. randomness). That order implies design. Design implies intelligence.

 

[Skwim]

Why?

If you consider an example of a building or a machine, you would see order (vs. randomness). That order implies design. Design implies intelligence.

I suppose if you insist on it; however, order doesn't necessarily imply intelligence at all. Take the symmetry of the snowflake, which to many people appears to have been designed (If it was truly designed then one has to wonder why the designer is taking so much time designing each and every one of the mega-quadrillion snowflakes each day. You would think he had better things to do). Although exhibiting extreme symmetry there's a very simple answer for snowflake symmetry. From caltech.edu:

"While it grows, the crystal is blown to and fro inside the clouds, so the temperature it sees changes randomly with time. But the crystal growth depends strongly on temperature . . . Thus the six arms of the snow crystal each change their growth with time. And because all six arms see the same conditions at the same times, they all grow about the same way. The end result is a complex, branched structure that is also six-fold symmetric. And note also that since snow crystals all follow slightly different paths through the clouds, individual crystals all tend to look different.
source
​

And from Wikipedia:

A non-aggregated snowflake often exhibits six-fold radial symmetry. The initial symmetry can occur[9] because the crystalline structure of ice is six-fold. The six "arms" of the snowflake, or dendrites, then grow independently, and each side of each arm grows independently. Most snowflakes are not completely symmetric. The micro-environment in which the snowflake grows changes dynamically as the snowflake falls through the cloud, and tiny changes in temperature and humidity affect the way in which water molecules attach to the snowflake. Since the micro-environment (and its changes) are very nearly identical around the snowflake, each arm can grow in nearly the same way. However, being in the same micro-environment does not guarantee that each arm grow the same; indeed, for some crystal forms it does not because the underlying crystal growth mechanism also affects how fast each surface region of a crystal grows. Empirical studies suggest less than 0.1% of snowflakes exhibit the ideal six-fold symmetric shape.
​

So, while you may think that design implies intelligence, it does nothing of the sort.


.

 

[Sapiens]

No, "why" comes first. "Why" brings an understanding, then "what & how" follow.

If we consider Newton's apple, newton didn't wonder about the weight or speed of the apple. He wondered why that apple always descend perpendicularly to the ground. After the notion of gravitation came into his mind, then "what & how" followed.

Actually "what" comes first, without the answer to "what" happened, "why" never even gets asked.

 

[Sapiens]

Why?

If you consider an example of a building or a machine, you would see order (vs. randomness). That order implies design. Design implies intelligence.

Indeed, in such cases the product flows from a visualization. But ... that is not true of natural items. To say that a crystal lattice or a metabolic pathway is analogous to a cottage or a printing press is absurd.

 

[Sapiens]

Why?

If you consider an example of a building or a machine, you would see order (vs. randomness). That order implies design. Design implies intelligence.

Indeed, in such cases the product flows from a visualization. But ... that is not true of natural items. To say that a crystal lattice or a metabolic pathway is analogous to a cottage or a printing press is absurd.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, "why" comes first. "Why" brings an understanding, then "what & how" follow.

If we consider Newton's apple, newton didn't wonder about the weight or speed of the apple. He wondered why that apple always descend perpendicularly to the ground. After the notion of gravitation came into his mind, then "what & how" followed.

True, and arguably nothing can exist without an answer to the question 'why'. Without purpose, design, a desired outcome, there is no ultimate explanation for anything

 

[Sapiens]

True, and arguably nothing can exist without an answer to the question 'why'. Without purpose, design, a desired outcome, there is no ultimate explanation for anything

Oh, come on, most things exist without a definitive "why," unless you want to count fables and mythology as "whys."

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oh, come on, most things exist without a definitive "why," unless you want to count fables and mythology as "whys."

we know of many things that without doubt require a 'why'- a purpose, without which they could not exist.

As for anything being able to come about entirely by spontaneous accident, that's trickier to establish isn't it?

 

[Sapiens]

we know of many things that without doubt require a 'why'- a purpose, without which they could not exist.

As for anything being able to come about entirely by spontaneous accident, that's trickier to establish isn't it?

It would be if anyone was, in fact, advocating, "origin by spontaneous accident." Still, "why" is utterly irreverent, at best, and a stinkin' red herring, at worst.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It would be if anyone was, in fact, advocating, "origin by spontaneous accident." Still, "why" is utterly irreverent, at best, and a stinkin' red herring, at worst.

origin by spontaneous accident, sheer fluke, random chance, whatever term you prefer, - 'why' provides a power of explanation nature alone lacks, and solves what is otherwise a paradoxical infinite regression of unguided mechanisms.