some thoughts on creationism

[Valjean]

The only evidence we have that design is an intentional course of action is that it results is a specific outcome. But that is tautological thinking. Unless we can identify the origin of the design, we really have no idea what intention might or might not be behind it.

We know it's design, that is self-evident. What we don't know is it's origin, and therefor if it expresses any intent beyond the immediate results.

If you choose to use design metaphorically, fine, but I see no indication of intelligence, intent, or planning. The origin of 'design' is chemistry or physics, with matter and energy just following the rules, as F1fan put it.
The genesis of these rules may be unknown, but ascribing it to magic and an invisible, intentional magician is a rather fantastical claim.

 

[McBell]

... but ascribing it to magic and an invisible, intentional magician is a rather fantastical claim.

For some, that is their whole argument in a nut shell.

 

[PureX]

It would be less frustrating to talk to you if you were open about it when you just make up your own definitions of words.

When you act as if the definition you just made up is what the word means to everyone, the thread just derails into correcting your use of language instead of the actual topic.

I'm not doing it again.

Yeah, it‘s frustrating when the logical explanation just doesn’t support your bias and your ego just won’t let you be wrong.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, it‘s frustrating when the logical explanation just doesn’t support your bias and your ego just won’t let you be wrong.

Do you realize you are describing yourself? Those of us who you are frustrated with are just deferring to knowledge.

 

[McBell]

Yeah, it‘s frustrating when the logical explanation just doesn’t support your bias and your ego just won’t let you be wrong.

Interesting that you think you have presented "logical" explanations...

 

[Dimi95]

If you choose to use design metaphorically, fine, but I see no indication of intelligence, intent, or planning. The origin of 'design' is chemistry or physics, with matter and energy just following the rules, as F1fan put it.
The genesis of these rules may be unknown, but ascribing it to magic and an invisible, intentional magician is a rather fantastical claim.

I have few questions..

What does make you think that there is no Cosmic intelligence ?
Cosmic intelligence that could've set forth the laws of physics?
Do you deny that possibility ?
Do you think that you are a product of Physics , Chemistry and Neurobiology?

In some sense you point to 'illusion of design'(I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but that is how i get the message).

Simon Conway Morris:
"If you take the evolutionary pathways,they are navigating through an informational hyperspace with phenomenal precision."

Professor Simon Conway Morris | Department of Earth Sciences

www.esc.cam.ac.uk

And therefor comes the impression of design at that level.
If this mechanism is so clever then itself leaves evidence that there is intelligence behind it.
If we say that natural selection works perfectly without guiding force , then that's an assumption.
We don't deny the existence of cosmic intelligence just by pointing out the mechanism.

If there is Cosmic Intelligence behind it , most probably that force is more superior and unknown to us.

The universe is expanding , so there is high possibility that it had a begining.

 

[Valjean]

Interesting that you think you have presented "logical" explanations...

And that his ego, rather than logical [reasonable] explanations, is proof against being wrong.

 

[Heyo]

I have few questions..

What does make you think that there is no Cosmic intelligence ?
Cosmic intelligence that could've set forth the laws of physics?
Do you deny that possibility ?
Do you think that you are a product of Physics , Chemistry and Neurobiology?

How do you define intelligence in this context?
What would be an experiment to falsify your hypothesis?

If we live in a simulation, our universe could be "intelligently designed". The problem is to think of an experiment that supports the hypothesis.
So, until that happens I treat that hypothesis as unscientific as it violates the first axiom of science: reality is real.

For more on the simulation hypothesis see my old thread on the matter: Are the Programmers Gods?

 

[Dimi95]

How do you define intelligence in this context?

Concious,superior

What would be an experiment to falsify your hypothesis?

Rationality comes from irrationality
By definition , when we say there is no mind behind it.

And by how you replied me.Even before i started reading , i know that something complex can be generated by something more complex, which is you.

Are we not the product of this universe?

Cars and agents are also good example.

Also

Mind produces language
Language produce words.
Words make sentences
Sentences make meaning.

I can even disect you and so on and so forth , but you are not just a scientific object, you are also a person.

But it also bears the question , what kind of product are we in this Universe?

For more on the simulation hypothesis see my old thread on the matter: Are the Programmers Gods?

I will look it , thank you.

 

[Heyo]

Rationality comes from irrationality
By definition , when we say there is no mind behind it.

And by how you replied me.Even before i started reading , i know that something complex can be generated by something more complex, which is you.

Are we not the product of this universe?

Cars and agents are also good example.

Also

Mind produces language
Language produce words.
Words make sentences
Sentences make meaning.

I can even disect you and so on and so forth , but you are not just a scientific object, you are also a person.

But it also bears the question , what kind of product are we in this Universe?

That doesn't answer my question.
Can you make a prediction that I would have to contradict (because I question the existence of that superior, conscious intelligence) so that, if the prediction wouldn't be fulfilled, your hypothesis is falsified?

 

[Valjean]

I have few questions..

What does make you think that there is no Cosmic intelligence ?
Cosmic intelligence that could've set forth the laws of physics?

To answer your questions, I'd first need to understand your concept of "cosmic intelligence."
Do you think of it as a personage of some kind? an intentional consciousness? goal oriented? If so, then my skepticism is based on lack of either need or evidence of any conscious entity or planning.

There are known, observable, natural, automatic mechanisms for the life and order we see in the world, and, as for the "cause" of the mechanisms -- chemistry, physics, natural selection, &c -- these are questions of science; questions to be researched and tested, not accepted on the basis of tradition or familiarity.
Nor does Goddidit! answer the question's. It explains nothing. It's a special pleading for an analog of the conscious agency we're familiar with in our technological, human societies.

Do you deny that possibility ?

It is possible, but so are trans-dimensional constructor mice, færies, or a Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Judged by currently known, empirical evidence, the statistical likelihood of any of these four "possibilities" is mathematically equal. How are we to decide -- tradition, or evidence?
Keep in mind, there have been many magical "explanations" promulgated and accepted over history, involving all sorts of different deities or magical beings and forces.

So, again, how are we to decide? Tradition seems unreliable, as it's produced inconsistent results.
Maybe science -- with its unprecedented history of success, and consistent, evidenced-based results?

Do you think that you are a product of Physics , Chemistry and Neurobiology?

Yes.
How about yourself, what do you think?

In some sense you point to 'illusion of design'(I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but that is how i get the message).

Yes. We're surrounded with intentionally fabricated systems and devices, purpose-built by conscious entities to achieve preconceived goals. This is familiar to us.
In nature, we see similar complexity, interactivity and what appears to be intent and purpose, but this is a Watchmaker Misapprehension. There's another, actual explanation, known and observed.

Simon Conway Morris said recently: "If you take the evolutionary pathways,they are navigating through an informational hyperspace with phenomenal precision."

I'd say more like: "random mutation and reproductive variation, pruned by known, automatic mechanisms, with phenomenal precision, over time." -- No magic necessary.

And therefor comes the impression of design at that level.

"Impression" being the salient term. It's an appearance of design generated by observed, understandable mechanisms. Again, no magical designer necessary.

If this mechanism is so clever then itself leaves evidence that there is intelligence behind it.
If we say that natural selection works perfectly without guiding force , then that's an assumption.

No, the mechanisms are not assumptions. They were discovered; observed and tested by massive amounts of scientific research. They are based on empirical evidence, not faith in folklore or tradition.

We don't deny the existence of cosmic intelligence just by pointing out the mechanism.

Nor can we deny the existence of elves or a Flying Spaghetti Monster, since there's just as much actual evidence for their being the authors of life's intricacy as there is for the Abrahamic God.

If there is Cosmic Intelligence behind it , most probably that force is more superior and unknown to us.

Yet, thus far, neither a need nor any objective evidence for such a force has been discovered.
If the mechanisms and the steps of a biological process are known, why posit the involvement of any invisible, extraneous force? How is that any more reasonable than proposing the involvement of færies?

The universe is expanding , so there is high possibility that it had a begining.

Well.... yes, the beginning of the expansion has been dated, but what, if anything, preceded or generated this "big bang," is the current vanguard of theoretical physics.
IE: the current "gap" theistic apologists seem to be focusing on.

 

[Valjean]

The "mechanisms" are physical parameters that when adhered to, generate a specific, complex result. THAT IS CALLED DESIGN.

OK, so "design" = the laws and constants of nature. Got it.
How do you impute consciousness or intent to the laws of nature?

We do not know the origin of these physical parameters, so we can make no determination as to the "designer". Some sort of "designer" is certainly being implied.

Why?
You say yourself that the origin is unknown and no determination can be made.

 

[PureX]

OK, so "design" = the laws and constants of nature. Got it.

No. The laws governing the complex event that we call "nature" are designing the existential result.

How do you impute consciousness or intent to the laws of nature?

I don't. YOU are the one that keeps insisting on an "intelligent designer". I am trying to explain to you why this is not a logical necessity.

Why?
You say yourself that the origin is unknown and no determination can be made.

An implication does not equal a logical conclusion. Design may imply a designer, to we humans. But as we have no information whatever about this implied designer it is not logical to conclude that it exists. We can speculate, of course. Even hope if we want to. But that's as far as we can get.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Intelligent design is not creationism.

"cdesign proponentsists" disagree.

Google the term if you don't know what it is about.

Intelligent design is just an obvious observation on reality that a few eccentric religious adherents want to push on everyone else as fact.

No. Instead, it's the creationism of the 1950's disguised in a labcoat.

And their evangelism has very little effect except to rile up the few rabid atheists that cannot tolerate any theistic view of reality.

No. You might want to read the leaked Wedge document to find out what the actual purpose of "intelligent design" actually is.
It's nothing more or less then to sneak biblical creationism into science class rooms in high schools in the US.

Churches don't believe anything. People do. And people will choose the best options available to them in most instances. And because oppression is so prevalent in the 'third world' people often pretend to believe whatever the powers that be want them to believe.

Is the US a "third world" country?

47%

That's ~150 million people in the US alone.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The 'intelligence of design' is what science studies in nature. That a few religious zealots use the term for their own agenda doesn't change that, or mean they own the term. Nor does the fact that as a zealous atheist, you can't tolerate any relation to religion.

Clearly you have no idea what the "Intelligent Design" movement actually is.

Again, I suggest you google the terms "cdesign proponentsists" and read up.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Their claim, however, does not logically nor actually necessitate an intelligent mindful creator.

Except that it does.
It is in fact its entire raison d'être

You don't get to decide what is the best option for them. They do.
You don't get to control what other people believe or teach their children. And for good reason.

That's not entirely true.
Especially not when it comes to school curriculums.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The vast majority of humans are fine with "God did it" as an unconfirmed possibility, because that's what it is. It's only the zealots that can't let that stand as it is, and so try to insist that we all accept their view: either total creationism or a totally godless, pointless existence.

It doesn't matter what people "are fine with" when it comes to scientific subjects.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's all the dogma of "scientism". It's not science.

I notice that whenever things fall within the realm of scientific inquiry and it doesn't suite your opinion or agenda, you call it "scientism" as if it is an argument againt it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I for one accept evolution as having occured. However I don't consider the functions of living animals to be arbitrary nor some result of blind natural processes. The evidence is saying that purposed functions exist in the life forms.

Evolution isn't "blind" in that sense, due to natural selection.

So in a way I accept evolution, and in another way I see a deliberate planning of life in nature.

The planning part is an illusion. Natural selection is all it takes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The presence of design does not absolutely necessitate an "intelligent designer".

The claim of "intelligent design", does.

And at present, we have no way of determining this either way, as we have no way of determining the origin of existential design.

Since the ID movement focusses solely on biology, we actually do have a very good explanation for the design of life. It's called evolution by natural selection. No gods, designers or any form of "intelligence" required.