some thoughts on creationism

[PureX]

The majority of people who followed the "Intelligent Design", are following the ID of Phillip E Johnson and Stephen C Meyer, who created this movement with the Discovery Institute, and co-wrote the manifesto Wedge Document, which hide their creationist agendas.

In the Discovery Institute’s case, the “intelligent design“ of life, explicitly require the “DESIGNER“.

They don't own the words, and they don't own our minds. So I am free to use the words as they were originally intended. And so are you.

I understand that you NEED their bias as your opponent, here. But I don't. So I can just assess the question logically, and without the need for your bias or theirs.

Now, you may have your own version Intelligent Design that doesn’t require the ”designer”, you are among the tiny minority.

I'm not looking to join any crowds. I'm simply pointing out that logically there is no necessity for a "designer". Even though one is implied.

The fact is that there are more people who believed there is a Designer - a conscious and intelligent entity who supposedly “design” life, “design” every cells, “design” every biological molecules (eg proteins, DNA, lipids, etc) that make up all these cells.

That's because the design is obvious to anyone with eyes, and some sort of designer is then implied. But they are wrong if they claim a designer is necessitated, because we have no knowledge of that being true.

What you are proposing ”designs” without the “designer”, but still to be “INTELLIGENT“ and “CONSCIOUS“, would required “you” to clearly define what you means by these terminologies - ”design”, “intelligent“, “conscious”, which must then support with physical evidence.

I am not required to do your thinking for you. Especially when you don't want to consider what I am proposing. The conscious intelligence is clearly evident in the result of the design parameters. And that does imply that these traits be extant in the "designer", if there is one. But again, we have no way of knowing this to be so. Or not to be so.

You have done neither, PureX. All you have been doing is blame everyone who have disagreed with you, of being “scientism”…that’s just cheap shots. You are refusing to play ball, to clearly state what you mean by “designs”, by ”intelligent”, and by “consciousness”.

How many times have others ask for your definitions to these terms?

I explain how and why I use these and other terms all the time. If you don't want to hear it because it foils your bias, that's your problem. And it's not my responsibility to open your mind, for you.

you clearly have different meanings to those words, but you refused to clarify.

I did clarify, and now I can't help you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They don't own the words, and they don't own our minds. So I am free to use the words as they were originally intended. And so are you.

I understand that you NEED their bias as your opponent, here. But I don't. So I can just assess the question logically, and without the need for your bias or theirs.

You are being disengenous. If you are going to use these words in different ways, by "interpreting" them and providing your own meaning to it, then you are just going to end up talking past eachother. That would be counterproductive.

It doesn't matter what these words mean "to you". What matters is that they form the NAME of a model proposed by people at the discovery institute.
The NAME refers to the MODEL.

So when using the words in this context, it matters not what the words literally "mean" or how they can be "interpreted". They are just a label to reference the MODEL.
The discussion then is not about the words. It's about the MODEL that it references.

The model is what it is. Bickering about the words used to name the model isn't going to amount to anything of value.

I explain how and why I use these and other terms all the time. If you don't want to hear it because it foils your bias, that's your problem. And it's not my responsibility to open your mind, for you.

Good for you. Nobody cares.
The problem remains the same: it is about the MODEL. The words are just the NAME of the model.
Bickering about the words, even if it is to suggest the words are ambigous to use as the name for the model, is missing the point.

The point is about the model. They could have named their model "gooblydockbloblo" and it wouldn't have made a difference.
The model is the model is the model.

And their model requires a designer / god.
Period.

 

[PureX]

Ya'll are just whining because the design of reality infers a designer and you don't like it. Too bad for you.

The design remains obvious, and so do the 'smart' results. And the implication still stands. I'm trying to point out that this doesn't mean that you have to accept the implication of a designer. But for some reason you still want to argue about it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ya'll are just whining because the design of reality infers a designer and you don't like it.

It does not.

And nobody here is "whining".
People are merely informing you of a mistake you are making.
But closedminded as you are, you aren't having any of it and prefer doubling down on your mistakes instead of actually learning something.

The design remains obvious, and so do the 'smart' results. And the implication still stands. I'm trying to point out that this doesn't mean that you have to accept the implication of a designer. But for some reason you still want to argue about it.

Nobody is arguing about that silly proposition.
We are explaining to you that "intelligent design" is the name of a model.
And when that name is being brought up in discussions such as this, the thing that is being discussed is the model the name refers to, not the words that make up the name.

Take a deep breath and stop with all this defensive passive aggressiveness dude... It's really unbecoming.

 

[Valjean]

Ya'll are just whining because the design of reality infers a designer and you don't like it. Too bad for you.

The design remains obvious, and so do the 'smart' results. And the implication still stands. I'm trying to point out that this doesn't mean that you have to accept the implication of a designer. But for some reason you still want to argue about it.

The design is not obvious. Yes, there is complexity and interactive function; my cat is complex system of functional, interactive subsystems, but she didn't get that way because of any intentional meddling. The complexity is the result of innumerable chance variations favored or disfavored by circumstance. What worked, remained, what didn't, didn't. What resulted was a complex but functional Rube Goldberg that no competent, "smart" designer would claim credit for.

 

[PureX]

The design is not obvious. Yes, there is complexity and interactive function; my cat is complex system of functional, interactive subsystems, but she didn't get that way because of any intentional meddling.

She got that way because certain existential events were possible, while any and all existential events were not possible. These possibilities and impossibilities were the "design" parameters through which all that exists, exists. Including your cat.

We do not know what those fundamental possibilities and impossibilities are, or why they are what they are, how they are being imposed, or from whence they originated. But we can see that they are still in effect, and are still governing the existential event as it unfolds. And we can also see that the results are wildly complex and sophisticated. So much so that we humans still cannot comprehend them, though we are certainly trying.

The complexity is the result of innumerable chance variations favored or disfavored by circumstance.

"Innumerable chance variations" cannot produce anything but more innumerable chance variations until they are either denied, or enabled, so that the enabled variations can build on each other. Chance itself can produce nothing. It's a state of relative equilibrium. The only way it can produce/become something is for it not to become produce/something else. It has to stop being random, and become specific.

Existence did not spring from random nothingness because it couldn't. Nothing ever could or would.

What worked, remained, what didn't, didn't.

What "worked" was what was/is possible. What didn't work, didn't work, because it was not possible. But what was it that determined what is possible and what isn't? It's not chance, because chance can't determine anything by itself. Chance isn't really even the right word, here, chaos is. The term chance refers to a condition in which several possibilities appear to us to be equally possible. Chance happens within the set of possible and impossible parameters. Only abject chaos can happen without those parameters. And that can never be or become anything but what it already is.

 

[Valjean]

She got that way because certain existential events were possible, while any and all existential events were not possible. These possibilities and impossibilities were the "design" parameters through which all that exists, exists. Including your cat.

??? -- I was talking about natural selection. What are you talking about?

We do not know what those fundamental possibilities and impossibilities are, or why they are what they are, how they are being imposed, or from whence they originated. But we can see that they are still in effect, and are still governing the existential event as it unfolds. And we can also see that the results are wildly complex and sophisticated. So much so that we humans still cannot comprehend them, though we are certainly trying.

This sophisticated complexity unfolded naturally from the laws and constants of nature. Given time, these are all that's needed for the complexity you find so incredible.
Review the physics, chemistry, biology, &c. underlying the complexity you question. Natural mechanisms are at play.
There's neither need for nor evidence of intentional, magical intervention

"Innumerable chance variations" cannot produce anything but more innumerable chance variations until they are either denied, or enabled, so that the enabled variations can build on each other. Chance itself can produce nothing. It's a state of relative equilibrium. The only way it can produce/become something is for it not to become produce/something else. It has to stop being random, and become specific.

Chance can produce the variation biology works with, and the physics that underlies the universe.

Existence did not spring from random nothingness because it couldn't. Nothing ever could or would.

Why not? Big Bang physics is not understood, but the subsequent physics can explain the complexity without any special plea of magic.
I suspect you are dissatisfied with natural explanations because: 1. you haven't studied the proposed physical mechanisms, and 2. you're invested in the magical, familiar "explanation" offered by religion.

What "worked" was what was/is possible. What didn't work, didn't work, because it was not possible. But what was it that determined what is possible and what isn't? It's not chance, because chance can't determine anything by itself.

Chance happens. What results from chance events is often determined by natural physics or chemistry. Physics and chemistry are real.

Chance isn't really even the right word, here, chaos is. The term chance refers to a condition in which several possibilities appear to us to be equally possible. Chance happens within the set of possible and impossible parameters. Only abject chaos can happen without those parameters. And that can never be or become anything but what it already is.

The parameters are the natural laws and constants. The universe unfolds as i allowed by these. No divine magician is needed or evidenced.

 

[Pogo]

She got that way because certain existential events were possible, while any and all existential events were not possible. These possibilities and impossibilities were the "design" parameters through which all that exists, exists. Including your cat.

We do not know what those fundamental possibilities and impossibilities are, or why they are what they are, how they are being imposed, or from whence they originated. But we can see that they are still in effect, and are still governing the existential event as it unfolds. And we can also see that the results are wildly complex and sophisticated. So much so that we humans still cannot comprehend them, though we are certainly trying.

"Innumerable chance variations" cannot produce anything but more innumerable chance variations until they are either denied, or enabled, so that the enabled variations can build on each other. Chance itself can produce nothing. It's a state of relative equilibrium. The only way it can produce/become something is for it not to become produce/something else. It has to stop being random, and become specific.

Existence did not spring from random nothingness because it couldn't. Nothing ever could or would.

What "worked" was what was/is possible. What didn't work, didn't work, because it was not possible. But what was it that determined what is possible and what isn't? It's not chance, because chance can't determine anything by itself. Chance isn't really even the right word, here, chaos is. The term chance refers to a condition in which several possibilities appear to us to be equally possible. Chance happens within the set of possible and impossible parameters. Only abject chaos can happen without those parameters. And that can never be or become anything but what it already is.

This is just the argument from ignorance, I don't understand how this could have happened, therefore god. We used to blame thunder on gods but we KNOW better now.

 

[LuisDantas]

Creationism is not about God creating the world. It's about God creating the world via 'divine magic'. Rather then God creating the world via natural physical processes. Once we remove the insinuation of magic, creationism ceases to be an issue for anyone but a few stubborn theists and a few stubborn atheists. Everyone else is fine with it. Scientists can study the processes while the religionists thank and praise the glory of God for setting it all in motion. And life moves on.

Except that the word is rarely used só humbly or respectfully

 

[gnostic]

"Innumerable chance variations" cannot produce anything but more innumerable chance variations until they are either denied, or enabled, so that the enabled variations can build on each other. Chance itself can produce nothing. It's a state of relative equilibrium. The only way it can produce/become something is for it not to become produce/something else. It has to stop being random, and become specific.

Existence did not spring from random nothingness because it couldn't. Nothing ever could or would.

Your reply, highlighted in bold, don't logically make sense with the rest of quoted reply.

Who said anything about "chance" produces "nothing" or "variation" produces "nothing"?

@Valjean wrote:

Yes, there is complexity and interactive function; my cat is complex system of functional, interactive subsystems, but she didn't get that way because of any intentional meddling. The complexity is the result of innumerable chance variations favored or disfavored by circumstance. What worked, remained, what didn't, didn't. What resulted was a complex but functional Rube Goldberg that no competent, "smart" designer would claim credit for.

Nothing here, indicated that Valjean was writing about "NOTHING". He didn't say anything about "something coming from nothing" or "something making nothing". Nothingness doesn't even come into the picture - not explicitly, nor implied. So what you wrote, not only don't make sense, Valjean wasn't saying what you are claiming.

Is it simply, you misunderstanding Valjean, or you don't understanding biology?

When people speak of variations, particularly in biology, there are talking about organisms and the gene pool that come from reproduction, and those genes will have variations from parent organisms and genes from ancestors...the point is that, in sexual reproduction, child organisms will inherit certain trait from one parent or ancestor, or from the others...and inherit other trait from one or the others...and so on.

That's what they mean by "chance", when it comes to variations. Chance is that it can inherit the trait from one side, and a different trait from the other side, or vice versa, and that's really depends on the gene pool, where the variations come from...but none of that come from non-existence gene (your "nothing")...unless, of course, the child organism has genes that mutated not found in either sides of the family, but Mutations are different story to mechanism like Natural Selection.

So your asserting "nothing" into Valjean's "chance variations", is really you, either misunderstanding Valjean's reply, or you attempting to divert the topic into something completely different (claiming thing he didn't say).

 

[PureX]

This is just the argument from ignorance, I don't understand how this could have happened, therefore god. We used to blame thunder on gods but we KNOW better now.

There is no argument being posed, and I said nothing about God. It is a fact that existence is the expression of design. That design is what science, philosophy, and even art, study. The content and origin of that design is a mystery to us. But it does imply the possibility of some kind of designer. Though this does not logically necessitate there being one.

You're jousting at windmills, here.

 

[PureX]

Your reply, highlighted in bold, don't logically make sense with the rest of quoted reply.

Who said anything about "chance" produces "nothing" or "variation" produces "nothing"?

@Valjean wrote:



Nothing here, indicated that Valjean was writing about "NOTHING". He didn't say anything about "something coming from nothing" or "something making nothing". Nothingness doesn't even come into the picture - not explicitly, nor implied. So what you wrote, not only don't make sense, Valjean wasn't saying what you are claiming.

First, he used the wrong word. What he was actually referring to was chaos. Randomocity. Not chance. Chance can't occur until there is already a set order.

Is it simply, you misunderstanding Valjean, or you don't understanding biology?

Biology is irrelevant. Biology is just a subset of the existential order creating all that is. So the real question to be asked is what is creating that order? Is it chance? No. Is it random chaos? No. It's the fact that some existential expression is possible, while any or all existential expression is not.

So what is determining what is possible to occur and what is not? We do not know. Some people label this mystery source "God". Some people label it "chance". Some people just ignore the question because they have no answers. But the question remains. And whatever the answer is, it is at the heart of "creationism" as a philosophical quandary.

When people speak of variations, particularly in biology, there are talking about organisms and the gene pool that come from reproduction, and those genes will have variations from parent organisms and genes from ancestors...the point is that, in sexual reproduction, child organisms will inherit certain trait from one parent or ancestor, or from the others...and inherit other trait from one or the others...and so on.

That's what they mean by "chance", when it comes to variations. Chance is that it can inherit the trait from one side, and a different trait from the other side, or vice versa, and that's really depends on the gene pool, where the variations come from...but none of that come from non-existence gene (your "nothing")...unless, of course, the child organism has genes that mutated not found in either sides of the family, but Mutations are different story to mechanism like Natural Selection.

So your asserting "nothing" into Valjean's "chance variations", is really you, either misunderstanding Valjean's reply, or you attempting to divert the topic into something completely different (claiming thing he didn't say).

If that makes you happy.

 

[Valjean]

There is no argument being posed, and I said nothing about God. It is a fact that existence is the expression of design. That design is what science, philosophy, and even art, study. The content and origin of that design is a mystery to us. But it does imply the possibility of some kind of designer. Though this does not logically necessitate there being one.

You're jousting at windmills, here.

The origins of the laws and constants that produced the world may be a mystery, but the mechanisms and effects wrought by their unfoldment are nor. The "design" is not intentional. The order and complexity can be accounted for by the unconscious laws of physics or chemistry. The mechanisms that produced this complexity are known, and don't require any conscious intervention by a magical personage.

You're arguing from incredulity.

 

[PureX]

The origins of the laws and constants that produced the world may be a mystery, but the mechanisms and effects wrought by their unfoldment are nor.

Yes, for the most part they are still a mystery to us as well. We see the results of the design and like to pretend we see the design. But we don't. That's just human fear and ego talking.

The "design" is not intentional.

Since we have no clue as to it's content or origin, we cannot possibly know that to be so.

The order and complexity can be accounted for by the unconscious laws of physics or chemistry.

But those "laws" are just our observing the expression of the design. This has nothing to do with the possibilities involved in the fact of the design, or of the question of a designer.

The mechanisms that produced this complexity are known, and don't require any conscious intervention by a magical personage.

Wow, you're really trying to bolster that belief, aren't you. Unfortunately, it's completely unfounded.

You're arguing from incredulity.

I'm not arguing at all. I'm simply pointing out the fact of our reality. And that is that we humans have no knowledge or understanding of why or how of from what source everything that exists, exists as it does. We are all fundamentally clueless.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Innumerable chance variations" cannot produce anything but more innumerable chance variations until they are either denied, or enabled, so that the enabled variations can build on each other. Chance itself can produce nothing. It's a state of relative equilibrium. The only way it can produce/become something is for it not to become produce/something else. It has to stop being random, and become specific.

Natural selection.

What "worked" was what was/is possible. What didn't work, didn't work, because it was not possible. But what was it that determined what is possible and what isn't? It's not chance, because chance can't determine anything by itself. Chance isn't really even the right word, here, chaos is. The term chance refers to a condition in which several possibilities appear to us to be equally possible. Chance happens within the set of possible and impossible parameters. Only abject chaos can happen without those parameters. And that can never be or become anything but what it already is.

Natural selection.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The content and origin of that design is a mystery to us.

The topic is biology, so the "design" under discussion is biological lifeforms.
That is not a mystery. It's very well understood and explained. The mechanism by which it comes about is called evolution.

But it does imply the possibility of some kind of designer.

No. Evolution requires no designer nore does it imply one.
Au contraire, actually. It very explicitely posits a mechanism that operates independently, through simple natural processes.

 

[Balthazzar]

There have been quite a few creationism threads here lately and all of them were tediously similar to each other...........

But here's the thing about creationism:

Nobody examining the reality of the natural world would ever conclude that some being like God "did it" unless they had preconceived notions about God at work in their head

The evidence alone does not point to God or anything like that, God is a total non sequitur, you may as well go about saying "Mr Potato Head did it!" that would be just as valid

Nobody who had never heard of God would see the evidence and then conclude that some entity with the features of God created it, the evidence does not lead to God, God is an enormous assumption

The bible is the only reason to think that God created reality, none of the evidence points to that and I think the reason the so-called "creationists" have it in for things like evolution is because evolution shows us that their dear book is not a literal scientific account, which is what they think it is

As such, believing God did it has nothing to do with evidence, it is a fantasy and the evidence does not naturally lead to the idea of there being a God - unless you already believe that

This is the sentiment I wanted to express in this thread:

I wish creationists would be honest and say that they choose blind faith over reason and evidence, I would have much more respect if they said this instead of pretending to be interested in science in a pathetic attempt to beat their opponents at their own game

I don't even think creationism should be called something with an "ism" at the end as that bestows undue dignity on it, I think "willful ignorance" is a more accurate term

I found this picture earlier today and it reminded me of some of the threads we've had here on RF recently, I thought I'd share it here:

View attachment 86588

Edit: I found this as well

View attachment 86595

A very commonly expressed view of creationists.

I've wondered for some time now, if anyone will ever clearly define God in the secular community according to what's known and understood in the universe as being evidenced enough to acknowledge the connection. God is a term. Universe is a term. Human is a term. Mind is a term. Cosmos is a term. Consciousness is a term. Language barriers - from old to more modernized language, utilized to describe similar realities or truths seem to be at the base of the discussions and disagreements. The modernized world of secularism chooses to discard the foundations upon which they were enabled to be formed. The steps taken from point a to where we are today discarded in favor of new language descriptors, all while the rest of the world operate under the very premises being discarded, namely religion and the concept of a creator titled God.

 

[Balthazzar]

By operational mechanics of physics, it is safe to suggest that given their reliability, it would be considered an intelligent way to fashion or form a system through which many types of manifestations of matter are enabled to form. For this reason, I would view existence to be intelligent as itself. Whether we take the position of the universe being created by an intelligent designer or the position that it just happened and the natural laws inherent to the system enabled it, is a fairly moot variance. The fact that it functions as it does should be enough to get past our beliefs in how it all came to be, specifically as this corresponds to there being a creator who designed it all or no creator, and intelligence being a product of non- intelligence.

 

[Twilight Hue]

By operational mechanics of physics, it is safe to suggest that given their reliability, it would be considered an intelligent way to fashion or form a system through which many types of manifestations of matter are enabled to form. For this reason, I would view existence to be intelligent as itself. Whether we take the position of the universe being created by an intelligent designer or the position that it just happened and the natural laws inherent to the system enabled it, is a fairly moot variance. The fact that it functions as it does should be enough to get past our beliefs in how it all came to be, specifically as this corresponds to there being a creator who designed it all or no creator, and intelligence being a product of non- intelligence.

I find entropy provides a venue to help discover the explanation for all of it and it comes down to probability and energy.

 

[Balthazzar]

I find entropy provides a venue to help discover the explanation for all of it and it comes down to probability and energy.

Entropy as the mechanic of probability relating to how energy operates or functions? I'll need to look it up. It's funny though, how intelligence can design things utilizing us as the vehicle for the designs we create. Is this entropy at play also?

Edit: From chaos comes order - This is also true with thought processes.