intelligent design

[Acim]

Can you rule out all other options, both known and unknown, both probable and implausible? You can't; ergo, you "can't" conclude the house was designed, unless the designer himself stands up and claims. (Which he does, because construction firms advertise.)

What if we are the designers, and are not standing up? Instead living a lie, acting (with conviction) in irresponsible fashion?

Does science / scientific method have intelligent designer? Or plausible that original designer is nowhere to be found and it is random occurrence within pattern of philosophy?

Where is the tangible evidence that our methodologies are intelligent? I mean the objective evidence (apart from our obvious bias).

 

[Acim]

If the universe was intelligently created then why the waste? Why are there so many planets devoid of life or anything else particularly interesting like the rings of Saturn?

If we, of intelligence, are said designers and under illusion of separation (from each other, and Creator of us), I think reasonable conclusion for vastness and deadness of universe is to make it abundantly clear, we are alone, left to our own devices.

I mean if there was an intelligent designer the universe would be a far more different place to what we observe.

Sounds like intelligent speculation to understand universe would be different if designer were known. Almost as if you know said designer.

 

[javajo]

isnt it easier to believe that something less complex has no creator, than to believe that something far more complex has no creator? or am i missing something?

Its a good question. Trying to believe or not believe in God based on our limited reasoning, knowledge, and understanding is pretty futile to me. Faith and the witness and lives of others and what God has done in my life play a big part. I believe God has always existed and so never was created, and that is a very difficult thing to believe. For me, since I believe God has always existed, and I have no understanding of time outside of the context of time as we live it by the rotating and orbiting of our planet, I just take the Bible at its word by faith. As far as the actual creation, as actually having been created, I believe it is too complex and designed and finely balanced to not have been created by God. The witness and stories of others like David, Jesus, Paul, and all the people who trusted in God in the Bible, as well as those outside the Bible, and my own experience and studies, as well as my conscience and the creation are ample evidence for me, personally of God. But that's just me.

 

[outhouse]

this is a question i have asked myself for a long time. does intelligent design answer the question of origin or does it simply delay the question no one has an answer to?

if we go down the road of believing that one or multiple beings created everything in existence. the question then becomes who created that/those being/s? if we were to say that that/those being/s have no creators of their own but rather always existed, then the question becomes, who or what allowed that/those highly complex beings to exist in their vast complexity?? no one? nothing? random chance? luck? nothingness? because if thats the answer, then we have come full circle right back to the unknown... we havent advanced one bit. but simply delayed the question of origin.

if we find it reasonable to believe that our complex creator/s were not designed/created themselves, then logically we should find it even more reasonable to believe that the far less complex "creation"(existence) was itself not created/designed.

isnt it easier to believe that something less complex has no creator, than to believe that something far more complex has no creator? or am i missing something?

ID is a recently thought up mythical guess that creationist thought up to try and keep creation in public schools, it failed.

It lives only in imagination as there is zero evidence backing it up. There is a mountain of evidence that it was created as the bar on reality was pushed back to abiogenesis as evolution became evident in the last hundred and fifty years.

Some say its dead, I still feel its alive and kicking in the hearts of the faithful.




Because we dont have the exact proof of what happened over 3.6 billion years ago does not make it OK to stick a magic sky daddy in "OUR" gap of knowledge. :no:

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

I don't think there is any decent scientific modelling as to how the first living cell emerged or “abiogenisis” that I know of, but it may come in due course. It is just one of those gaps of mystery that has yet to be explained unlike other explanations to the natural world which have been previously attributed to the hand of God such as lightning cause by charge ions in the atmosphere and not God and earthquakes being cause by plate tectonics and not the direct hand of God. Abiogenisis is just another one of those gaps that people keep conjuring up God like some epistemological putty to fill or the “God of the Gaps” in other words.

Hi St Giordano Bruno!

You have a good point. There were lots of other phenomena that were a mystery to people that we can now explain. Lightning and earthquakes must have been particularly frightening, as they appear to strike for no reason. I can see how people would attribute those events to the wrath of God.

Peace and blessings
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[DinChild]

I realize I'm new to the forum, and my subsequent opinion may be overlooked, or rather, disregarded...but seriously, why do we, as atheists, even bother to argue the intelligent design debate? The time it was presented in light of substantial argument counter-intuitive to religious doctrine is far too coincidental. It's the same old song and dance..."Oh, well...God did it. Evolution and all. Dinosaurs? Sure, why not!" Whatever is currently unexplained is God's doing. Like the evolution of our understanding of the Cosmos hasn't already surpassed countless generations of disbelievers during any bracket of understanding. It's a consistent development. The constant denial against it is ignorant and not worth the time...but that's just my opinion. Sorry, enjoy your banter.

 

[1948_its_happening]

I am a scientist and with every year I learn more about the natural world around me the more unbelievable it is that there is no creator. More so, this creator is an artist and operated above functionality. He loves athsetics, intricate detail, diversity.

I've heard the scientific arguments that supposedly contradict the bible and none of them hold water. They are normally born out of a bad knowledge of both Science and Scripture.

Evolution is quite obviously the means by which God brought forth his creation. There are enough bones and obvious links to show that. But when we say evolution what do we mean?

Evolution definitely happened but it explains only a fraction of the natural world. It is the best model we have so far but is far from a best model.

Staticians have done various simulations using conservative probability spectrums to simulate evolutionary theory. Based on the link between animals which were supposed to have involved from oneanother and the given time difference between the age of the bones it was shown mathematically that that evolution advances way to fast to be sourced from random events and selective pruning.

I.e. It has been mathematically proven that evolution happened but at the same time it has been proven that it is impossible to have happened at the rate the bones indicate.

One conclusion, an intelligent designer used evolution but guided it so that it was not driven by merely random mutations and natural selection.

 

[DinChild]

I sincerely don't believe you're a scientist. Not in the loose sense, or the strictest sense. You're kinda just full of words at this point.

 

[1948_its_happening]

I sincerely don't believe you're a scientist. Not in the loose sense, or the strictest sense. You're kinda just full of words at this point.

If you dispute my claims provide a logical counter claim.

Please refrain from sweeping statements without any substance.

Your claim " I am not a scientist in the loose sense".

Is this said out of some sort of anti Christian spite or a rational consideration of my posted thoughts leading you to a conlcusion that I'm not making sense.

I have a masters degree in Science. I specialise is AI algorithms for high frequency energy conversion. What are your qualifications and what do you base your claims on.

Have you even read the bible?
Have you even qualified in any scientific field?

Are you another philosipher kicking up meaningless arguments between scripture and science when you have no formal education in either?

Am I wrong?

Keep it real, no unsubstantiated character attacks please.

 

[DinChild]

If you dispute my claims provide a logical counter claim.

Please refrain from sweeping statements without any substance.

Your claim " I am not a scientist in the loose sense".

Is this said out of some sort of anti Christian spite or a rational consideration of my posted thoughts leading you to a conlcusion that I'm not making sense.

I have a masters degree in Science. I specialise is AI algorithms for high frequency energy conversion. What are your qualifications and what do you base your claims on.

Have you even read the bible?
Have you even qualified in any scientific field?

Are you another philosipher kicking up meaningless arguments between scripture and science when you have no formal education in either?

Am I wrong?

Keep it real, no unsubstantiated character attacks please.

Let's be clear, I don't speak out of spite.

I'll readily accept having no educational background whatsoever. If this puts you off, then you're as judgmental as you presume me to be. But what I do know of actual scientists, is they don't accept fact unless empirical evidence is presented. They posit theories. They work the scientific method until a universal truth is unveiled. Last time I checked, believing in God as step 1 is counter intuitive to the scientific method, and therein does not label you a scientist; degrees and all. And I might also comment on your grammar and syntax. If you have a Masters, surely you'd present yourself, and your opinions more objectively...as well as more coherently. Evidence wise? I have no more than you do. But I will say this, the individual who supposed a God created all has the grander SWEEPING statement than anything I, and the leagues of respectable scientists working on uncovering the Cosmos, could ever hope to conjure.

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

I am a scientist and with every year I learn more about the natural world around me the more unbelievable it is that there is no creator. More so, this creator is an artist and operated above functionality. He loves athsetics, intricate detail, diversity.

Hi 1948_its_happening!

As a scientist maybe you can answer a question that's been bothering me about macroevolution. I have no problem grasping changes in morphology - the Darwin and his finches example. What I can't even begin to understand is how complex systems evolved - like the reproductive system, or the circulatory system. It seems to me that these systems operate on an "all or nothing" basis. Either all the parts are there and functioning or the whole thing crashes, kind of like a car engine. For example, in the circulatory system, the smooth muscle in the arteries has to contract during the diastolic phase of the heart in order to maintain blood pressure so you don't pass out. I can't understand how these complex biological machines could gradually come to pass. If you (or any other scientists in the discussion) have any thoughts I would be very interested in hearing them.

Peace and blessings
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[1948_its_happening]

Let's be clear, I don't speak out of spite.

I'll readily accept having no educational background whatsoever. If this puts you off, then you're as judgmental as you presume me to be. But what I do know of actual scientists, is they don't accept fact unless empirical evidence is presented. They posit theories. They work the scientific method until a universal truth is unveiled. Last time I checked, believing in God as step 1 is counter intuitive to the scientific method, and therein does not label you a scientist; degrees and all. And I might also comment on your grammar and syntax. If you have a Masters, surely you'd present yourself, and your opinions more objectively...as well as more coherently. Evidence wise? I have no more than you do. But I will say this, the individual who supposed a God created all has the grander SWEEPING statement than anything I, and the leagues of respectable scientists working on uncovering the Cosmos, could ever hope to conjure.

Scientific theory is rewritten every 5 years. Currently quantum theory is ripping a huge tear in all convention "univeral truth".

The funny thing is if you actually read all the scientific papers over the years instead of just picking up tid bits from news papers and magazines you would know that we have found no universal truth.

The truth is that as Scientists we are God smacked at the complexity of what we are desperately trying to model.

My statement was that as a Scientist I find it harder to believe there is not creator the more I study. I find it ironic that most of these anti biblical theories come from people who have not even sctratched the surface.

Pickl up a book on quantum theory and pickup a bible. After reading both I guarantee you will throw your current faith in "universal truth" away.

 

[DinChild]

Scientific theory is rewritten every 5 years. Currently quantum theory is ripping a huge tear in all convention "univeral truth".

The funny thing is if you actually read all the scientific papers over the years instead of just picking up tid bits from news papers and magazines you would know that we have found no universal truth.

The truth is that as Scientists we are God smacked at the complexity of what we are desperately trying to model.

My statement was that as a Scientist I find it harder to believe there is not creator the more I study. I find it ironic that most of these anti biblical theories come from people who have not even sctratched the surface.

Pickl up a book on quantum theory and pickup a bible. After reading both I guarantee you will throw your current faith in "universal truth" away.

I understand that quantum theory blasts a hole in a lot of theories. That's actually part of the BEAUTY of science. It in no way acts as a lever for religion. If you remember, religion was happy enough thinking the Earth was 6,000 years old at one point. Some people still hold fast to that. But you claim that because we HAVE NOT found an answer, that religion IS the answer. And therein, my friend, is the reason why I bring up the scientific method. Because irrespective of a universal truth, scientists, by definition, don't accept axioms. It would undermine the entire industry of science. God is an axiom. In fact, he's Captain Axiom. This is why I feel, in light of this scientific revolution, the intelligent design debate suddenly crops up is highly suspect. Just sounds like another faith-based ruse.

 

[1948_its_happening]

Hi 1948_its_happening!

As a scientist maybe you can answer a question that's been bothering me about macroevolution. I have no problem grasping changes in morphology - the Darwin and his finches example. What I can't even begin to understand is how complex systems evolved - like the reproductive system, or the circulatory system. It seems to me that these systems operate on an "all or nothing" basis. Either all the parts are there and functioning or the whole thing crashes, kind of like a car engine. For example, in the circulatory system, the smooth muscle in the arteries has to contract during the diastolic phase of the heart in order to maintain blood pressure so you don't pass out. I can't understand how these complex biological machines could gradually come to pass. If you (or any other scientists in the discussion) have any thoughts I would be very interested in hearing them.

Peace and blessings
Yeshe
:flower2:

What you mentioned is a very good point but you cannot use complexity or very low probability to disprove evolution. What you say is true in that there are many biological systems that either work or don't work and so how could it evolve in stages of functionality? Good point. There are however some explanations that could explain it but like I said their mathematical probability within the few billion year window does not add up to much.

Given infinite time and an infinite number of earth like planets I guess any highly improbably complex system could randomly come to be thtough some system of natural selection.

The problem is we do not have inifinite time and given the time constraints of unguided evolution without an intelligent designer it is by even optimistic probability chains impossible.

 

[DinChild]

What you mentioned is a very good point but you cannot use complexity or very low probability to disprove evolution. What you say is true in that there are many biological systems that either work or don't work and so how could it evolve in stages of functionality? Good point. There are however some explanations that could explain it but like I said their mathematical probability within the few billion year window does not add up to much.

Given infinite time and an infinite number of earth like planets I guess any highly improbably complex system could randomly come to be thtough some system of natural selection.

The problem is we do not have inifinite time and given the time constraints of unguided evolution without an intelligent designer it is by even optimistic probability chains impossible.

Then I guess you have an explanation for how plants evolve to befit the mating habits of specific insects and birds within a mere 10,000 year gap, some 100,000 years? Still a far cry from a billion. A billion years is QUITE a long time in evolutionary terms. Sure, I'm no scientist with a masters degree. But I have a strong general understanding of basic macroevolution. Nature is far more evolved, and at perfect homeostasis than humans are. Humans, in fact, are a terrible example of nature...evolutionary speaking, we're still infants.

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

believing in God as step 1 is counter intuitive to the scientific method, and therein does not label you a scientist; degrees and all. And I might also comment on your grammar and syntax. If you have a Masters, surely you'd present yourself, and your opinions more objectively...as well as more coherently.

Hi DinChild!

You're right, we should be skeptical of credentials on a discussion board, though I am more inclined to take people at their word until they prove otherwise. I wanted to make sure I understood your argument. Are you arguing that a scientist can't believe in God? Didn't Sir Francis Bacon develop the scientific method - I'm pretty sure that though he condemned superstition he had some belief in a god.

On a lighter note, as far as writing ability reflecting intelligence - I am taking a biology class taught by a lady with a PhD in cellular biology, and she can't spell to save her life.

Peace and blessings
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[DinChild]

Hi DinChild!

You're right, we should be skeptical of credentials on a discussion board, though I am more inclined to take people at their word until they prove otherwise. I wanted to make sure I understood your argument. Are you arguing that a scientist can't believe in God? Didn't Sir Francis Bacon develop the scientific method - I'm pretty sure that though he condemned superstition he had some belief in a god.

On a lighter note, as far as writing ability reflecting intelligence - I am taking a biology class taught by a lady with a PhD in cellular biology, and she can't spell to save her life.

Peace and blessings
Yeshe
:flower2:

You're right. Perhaps I was grasping at straws with the grammar, but I'd like to believe, if I was a scientist, I would want my thoughts and ideas to come across as verbose and coherent as Carl Sagan's had. And maybe Sir Francis Bacon did develop the scientific method while believing in God, but it doesn't alter the principle of science. Heck, even Aristotle conceded to a spherical world given empirical evidence. The point is, you don't start by assuming something exists, and then work to either prove or disprove it. You must prove first and foremost. That's science.

 

[1948_its_happening]

Then I guess you have an explanation for how plants evolve to befit the mating habits of specific insects and birds within a mere 10,000 year gap, some 100,000 years? Still a far cry from a billion. A billion years is QUITE a long time in evolutionary terms. Sure, I'm no scientist with a masters degree. But I have a strong general understanding of basic macroevolution. Nature is far more evolved, and at perfect homeostasis than humans are. Humans, in fact, are a terrible example of nature...evolutionary speaking, we're still infants.

Firstly let me state that I am a Christian I and do believe that evolution is a shallow model of something far more complex driven by the intelligent design of God the Father and Jesus the Son who together with the holy spirit form the authority in heaven and earth.

Again, I agree with you. Some macro evolutionary systems seem to have come into existance in such a short space of time yet are so complex and hard to explain in the scope of a "one mutation leads to another" path of logic.

Regarding mankind as being not as evolved as other natural organisms:
I would disagree. Firstly from an evolutionary perspective you have to define what is better, complexity or survival. In both cases humans are better at surviving and more complex. The human brain alone is vastly more complex than any micro or macro system in nature.

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

Given infinite time and an infinite number of earth like planets I guess any highly improbably complex system could randomly come to be thtough some system of natural selection.

Hi 1948_its_happening!

Thank you for your answer. It seems that the scientific answer is that we are the product of a chain of infinitely improbable events, rendered probable by the argument that there must be an almost infinite number of other worlds where the chain of events led to failure. It all sounds more like philosophy than anything else, but it makes an interesting discussion. I'm beginning to see why the Buddha said not to waste our time on the question of origins.

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[DinChild]

Regarding mankind as being not as evolved as other natural organisms:
I would disagree. Firstly from an evolutionary perspective you have to define what is better, complexity or survival. In both cases humans are better at surviving and more complex. The human brain alone is vastly more complex than any micro or macro system in nature.

I only meant as a consciousness. We are very weak willed, and childlike in nature as a civilization. But now that you mention it, though we are very adaptive (i.e. we can sew clothes from fabric to conserve heat during the colder months,) I don't believe we're nearly as biologically, in fact, physiologically evolved as certain plants and organisms (again, I'm no scientist, I only have general knowledge) who have spent tens of thousands of years adapting to their environment. I suppose I go back to plants in this argument. The spread of their nectar is by no means their own doing. Sure, our brains are an INCREDIBLE achievement in evolution. That's certainly not lost on me. But deep inside, intrinsically so, plants and insects have organically evolved together; somehow understanding one another through countless trial and error, to prosper. And this evolution, beyond my ability to document, has been observed. Life consciousness, as Sagan once put it, is a way for the Cosmos to know itself. And it, by nature's grand time-scale, is an infant who's only begun to walk.