The major difference between creationism and intelligent design

[JosephThomas]

I wanted to read all your posts, but found them agitating. So if anyone had a post they think I should read, please reference it.

The answer: NO.

Creationism: God created the world as described in the creation stories of the myths, the Judaic scriptures and the stories of the native people. Factually, none of those religions have creation stories which contradict each other. All their principals overlap.

Intelligent Design: A God whom has/would have expressed himself to humanity created the universe in some manner; known or undetermined.

Regardless. Intelligent design contradicts atheistic theories, because the very principal of chance and evolution are entirely contradictory to a design.

 

[Skwim]

I wanted to read all your posts, but found them agitating. So if anyone had a post they think I should read, please reference it.

The answer: NO.

Creationism: God created the world as described in the creation stories of the myths, the Judaic scriptures and the stories of the native people. Factually, none of those religions have creation stories which contradict each other. All their principals overlap.

Intelligent Design: A God whom has/would have expressed himself to humanity created the universe in some manner; known or undetermined.

Regardless. Intelligent design contradicts atheistic theories, because the very principal of chance and evolution are entirely contradictory to a design.

Please keep in mind that the theories Intelligent Design contradicts are not "atheistic" theories, but the theories of science.

 

[dust1n]

If all we have is subjective experiences then I might be inclined to agree with you.

Ah, well I'm afraid to report to you that that's all that we do have by definition.

But we have convincing evidence that something 'more' is going on here. People knowing things they couldn't have reasonably learned through normal channels, physical miracles, multiple independent sightings, and I could go on.

Let's see it. What can I test in a lab here and reproduce the results. An example is always nice.

This tells me there must be dramatically more to this universe than what our current science can explain.

There has always been and always be more to this universe than science can explain. That doesn't really explain though why such positions would ever be considered "scientific" as of now.

Next, I consider what this 'more' can be and I have found Vedic (Hindu) science has an understanding of the universe that goes beyond the physical and shows how what western science dismisses as hallucination is actually part and parcel of the eastern worldview. I know of no other system as inclusive in my judgement.

This "science" may have an understanding of the universe that goes beyond the physical, but unless they can actually demonstrate experimentally, empirically, with feasibility, and the ability to be repeated over and over by multiple people, it's not so much of a science as it is... just a bunch of claims about the universe I have no reason to take seriously, on a personal level, at least.

You are looking at this like we have to each invent the wheel from scratch. The saints/sages of the east I believe provide the most believable understanding of all this than any other of mankind's wisdom traditions (including western science and western religions).

Um. Because I do have to start from scratch. I'm not going to take someone's word on the truth of a matter because it's inconvenient for me to reinvent the wheel as your put it. Believablitity isn't a metric I use to determine truth claims either. Things happen that I never would have believed possible. I've believed things possible that probably never were and never will. Whether I believe something or not doesn't really mean it's true.

Certainly I don't believe everything I hear! I consider everything and all argumentation and believe what my objective reason tells me is the most reasonable position

"normal channels, physical miracles, multiple independent sightings"

So which is these have any evidence other than entirely anecdotal evidence, and where be it. I want to learn stuff from unattainable channels.

 

[Parsimony]

I wanted to read all your posts, but found them agitating. So if anyone had a post they think I should read, please reference it.

The answer: NO.

Creationism: God created the world as described in the creation stories of the myths, the Judaic scriptures and the stories of the native people. Factually, none of those religions have creation stories which contradict each other. All their principals overlap.

Intelligent Design: A God whom has/would have expressed himself to humanity created the universe in some manner; known or undetermined.

Regardless. Intelligent design contradicts atheistic theories, because the very principal of chance and evolution are entirely contradictory to a design.

I mostly agree with your definitions (except that I don't think intelligent design necessarily requires that the god doing the designing must make himself/herself known to humanity), but intelligent design can be compatible with evolution. Any all-knowing, all-powerful god could create the initial conditions of the Universe necessary to bring about the existence of humanity through evolution, as he/she would know every tiny detail necessary to create the chain of mutations and selective pressures required to bring it to pass.

 

[George-ananda]

Ah, well I'm afraid to report to you that that's all that we do have by definition.



Let's see it. What can I test in a lab here and reproduce the results. An example is always nice.



There has always been and always be more to this universe than science can explain. That doesn't really explain though why such positions would ever be considered "scientific" as of now.



This "science" may have an understanding of the universe that goes beyond the physical, but unless they can actually demonstrate experimentally, empirically, with feasibility, and the ability to be repeated over and over by multiple people, it's not so much of a science as it is... just a bunch of claims about the universe I have no reason to take seriously, on a personal level, at least.



Um. Because I do have to start from scratch. I'm not going to take someone's word on the truth of a matter because it's inconvenient for me to reinvent the wheel as your put it. Believablitity isn't a metric I use to determine truth claims either. Things happen that I never would have believed possible. I've believed things possible that probably never were and never will. Whether I believe something or not doesn't really mean it's true.



"normal channels, physical miracles, multiple independent sightings"

So which is these have any evidence other than entirely anecdotal evidence, and where be it. I want to learn stuff from unattainable channels.

You can continue to believe only what physical science can prove. And there is quite a bit that has been shown under controlled conditions (Ganzfeld, etc.) but one can always find a reason to disagree if so inclined. The problem is there is no official arbiter of when success is met so everyone can cling to their preferred opinion.

Me personally, I have considerable knowledge of a certain religious figure who has removed any doubts from my mind that western science is no more than just an infant. But it required an open mind for me to get there. But as a reconciliation point as an Advaita guy, your beliefs are not what really matters in the end. It is the quality of your heart and mind. An atheist can be ahead of me for example. My knowledge though does give me a more optimistic view of life and the universe and a reason to work to advance spiritually.

 

[dust1n]

You can continue to believe only what physical science can prove.

I don't, by the way. But I also don't claim that such beliefs are "scientific" when they aren't. Equally, like I said earlier, I don't believe in what science can prove, just what it establishes about physical phenomenon.

And there is quite a bit that has been shown under controlled conditions (Ganzfeld, etc.) but one can always find a reason to disagree if so inclined. The problem is there is no official arbiter of when success is met so everyone can cling to their preferred opinion.

So you are saying now that everything is subjective?

Me personally, I have considerable knowledge of a certain religious figure who has removed any doubts from my mind that western science is no more than just an infant. But it required an open mind for me to get there. But as a reconciliation point as an Advaita guy, your beliefs are not what really matters in the end. It is the quality of your heart and mind. An atheist can be ahead of me for example. My knowledge though does give me a more optimistic view of life and the universe and a reason to work to advance spiritually.

That's interesting, because I don't believe any given religious figure regardless if it conflicts with "Western" science or not. And it is an indeed a matter of attempting to maintain and open mind and "heart" that has led me to reason that it's highly unlikely that the accumulated knowledge of hundreds of thousands of people is somehow dwarfed by one dude who fancies himself more knowledgeable about the state of the universe. Certainly possible. Again, most things are possible. But possibility does not imply veracity.

 

[George-ananda]

I don't, by the way. But I also don't claim that such beliefs are "scientific" when they aren't. Equally, like I said earlier, I don't believe in what science can prove, just what it establishes about physical phenomenon.



So you are saying now that everything is subjective?



That's interesting, because I don't believe any given religious figure regardless if it conflicts with "Western" science or not. And it is an indeed a matter of attempting to maintain and open mind and "heart" that has led me to reason that it's highly unlikely that the accumulated knowledge of hundreds of thousands of people is somehow dwarfed by one dude who fancies himself more knowledgeable about the state of the universe. Certainly possible. Again, most things are possible. But possibility does not imply veracity.

Nothing I believe conflicts with western science. But I believe western science is very limited in its reach. Also, as I said before I have objective reasons to believe from my paranormal studies that there is dramatically 'more' to the universe beyond the current reach of western science. And I wouldn't believe just 'One Dude' (as you put it) but an entire massive philosophy/science with an untold number of great sages/saints/seers that have created one of mankind's great wisdom traditions.

 

[dust1n]

Nothing I believe conflicts with western science. But I believe western science is very limited in its reach.

Science is limited in its reach according to you, but your belief in things that are greater than the physical universe, which is beyond the limit of science, is still somehow scientifically sound?

Science has limits. But it can be used beyond its limits.

Also, as I said before I have objective reasons to believe from my paranormal studies that there is dramatically 'more' to the universe beyond the current reach of western science. And I wouldn't believe just 'One Dude' (as you put it) but an entire massive philosophy/science with an untold number of great sages/saints/seers that have created one of mankind's great wisdom traditions.

How do you know the reasons you believe are objective if as you say, "The problem is there is no official arbiter of when success is met so everyone can cling to their preferred opinion." So when you cling to your preferred opinion, are you being objective?

 

[George-ananda]

Science is limited in its reach according to you, but your belief in things that are greater than the physical universe, which is beyond the limit of science, is still somehow scientifically sound?


Science has limits. But it can be used beyond its limits.

Science is limited by the reach of its instruments would you not agree?

How do you know the reasons you believe are objective if as you say, "The problem is there is no official arbiter of when success is met so everyone can cling to their preferred opinion." So when you cling to your preferred opinion, are you being objective?

The quality of each of our assessments is much determined by our ability to consider 'objectively'. I feel I am good at considering objectively but no one else should assume that about me.

The quote of mine you show above was in response to your claim that there was no reproducible proof of any paranormal things. Some say 'Yes there is' and some say 'No there isn't' and since there is no official arbiter each can go on in there merry way.

 

[viole]

I mostly agree with your definitions (except that I don't think intelligent design necessarily requires that the god doing the designing must make himself/herself known to humanity), but intelligent design can be compatible with evolution. Any all-knowing, all-powerful god could create the initial conditions of the Universe necessary to bring about the existence of humanity through evolution, as he/she would know every tiny detail necessary to create the chain of mutations and selective pressures required to bring it to pass.

Let's not forget asteroids and other mass extinctions cataclysms. In all honesty, the idea that the trajectory of a couple of asteroids orbiting between Mars and Jupiter has been so finely tuned by a deity at the beginning of time to cause the mass extinction of the competitors of a tiny rodent looking creature that spent millions of years hiding in a stinking hole so that it will eventually become the true objective of creation, is mind boggling. And morally questionable. Unless all those baby velociraptors went to heaven for their contribution, of course.

I mean, really? Isn't the fundamentalistic view of an omnipotent God, who knows what He wants, creating man from dust more plausible, at least theologically?

My personal opinion is that evolution by natural selection is totally incompatible with a moral God who knows what He wants and has the power to implement His will. Gods who do not satisfy these requirements are obviously excluded.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dust1n]

Science is limited by the reach of its instruments would you not agree?

Yes. You believe in truth values concerning entities beyond the reach of its instruments, and still claim it to be scientific. Am I mistaken?

The quality of each of our assessments is much determined by our ability to consider 'objectively'. I feel I am good at considering objectively but no one else should assume that about me.

But there is no arbiter to determine if your abilities to consider things objectively are actually considering things objectively. It's not different for scientists. The only difference is that scientists mostly just follow the same technique, and anyone can apply it themselves.

T

he quote of mine you show above was in response to your claim that there was no reproducible proof of any paranormal things. Some say 'Yes there is' and some say 'No there isn't' and since there is no official arbiter each can go on in there merry way.

If someone says "yes there is," all they would have to do is provide it. If someone says "no there isn't," the only official arbiter necessary in my mind is to demonstrate that "yes there is." It'd be one thing to say, "no, there isn't, but it's possible that there could be a way, and I'm working on that right now." That would one thing. But to actually claim "yes there is" and to not provide any example of how I can repeat the experiment and reproduce the proof myself seems pretty disingenuous.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The only way I can think of that a God might be involved in manipulating evolution or anything else would be by magic, ie: altering the laws of Nature -- the same laws God, presumably, decreed.

Were a creationist to deny magic, that would leave only the natural laws of physics and chemistry to explain evolution and complexity -- laws already in place and operating. Without magical intervention God becomes irrelevant.
So what is it, magic or mechanism? These are the only two alternatives I can see.


So what is this evidence for the existence of entities? What mechanisms of involvement in evolution are they using, and what evidence of their involvement is there?

How do we describe the nature of the code that runs this forum software- magic or mechanism? if mechanism- without magic the programmer becomes irrelevant by your rationale..?!

 

[Parsimony]

Let's not forget asteroids and other mass extinctions cataclysms. In all honesty, the idea that the trajectory of a couple of asteroids orbiting between Mars and Jupiter has been so finely tuned by a deity at the beginning of time to cause the mass extinction of the competitors of a tiny rodent looking creature that spent millions of years hiding in a stinking hole so that it will eventually become the true objective of creation, is mind boggling. And morally questionable. Unless all those baby velociraptors went to heaven for their contribution, of course.

It's not like the issue of being morally-questionable doesn't already apply to a fundamentalist Christian view of God (i.e. all those animals killed by a global flood).

I mean, really? Isn't the fundamentalistic view of an omnipotent God, who knows what He wants, creating man from dust more plausible, at least theologically?

Possibly, but it wouldn't be in line with available evidence for evolution.

My personal opinion is that evolution by natural selection is totally incompatible with a moral God who knows what He wants and has the power to implement His will. Gods who do not satisfy these requirements are obviously excluded.

The fundamentalist view of God isn't much different, as it is observable that He allows countless animals to suffer and die whether or not evolution actual comes of it.

 

[George-ananda]

If someone says "yes there is," all they would have to do is provide it. If someone says "no there isn't," the only official arbiter necessary in my mind is to demonstrate that "yes there is." It'd be one thing to say, "no, there isn't, but it's possible that there could be a way, and I'm working on that right now." That would one thing. But to actually claim "yes there is" and to not provide any example of how I can repeat the experiment and reproduce the proof myself seems pretty disingenuous.

Many scientists do claim reproducible positive results (Ganzfeld for example)......but then we will get into the 'yes there is' and 'no there isn't' people and with no official arbiter the debate can go on forever. I'm not going there again. I personally have no reasonable doubt that something interesting is going on from my studies of various parapsychologists' investigations the collections of anecdotal stories and events even from people I know personally. This is my objective conclusion. And what I learned dovetails well with the eastern (Hindu) worldview and not well with western materialism. You are free to draw your own 'objective' conclusions.

 

[dust1n]

Many scientists do claim reproducible positive results (Ganzfeld for example)......but then we will get into the 'yes there is' and 'no there isn't' people and with no official arbiter the debate can go on forever. I'm not going there again. I personally have no reasonable doubt that something interesting is going on from my studies of various parapsychologists' investigations the collections of anecdotal stories and events even from people I know personally. This is my objective conclusion. And what I learned dovetails well with the eastern (Hindu) worldview and not well with western materialism. You are free to draw your own 'objective' conclusions.

Looking at all ganzfeld stuff, I must admit, I'm not terrible impressed. Considering it has been attempted over and over, and generally accepted as basically having produced no significant results in 150 years without serious methodological flaws. I encourage you to look at the wikipedia for it... Either way, believe what you will.

 

[George-ananda]

Looking at all ganzfeld stuff, I must admit, I'm not terrible impressed. Considering it has been attempted over and over, and generally accepted as basically having produced no significant results in 150 years without serious methodological flaws. I encourage you to look at the wikipedia for it... Either way, believe what you will.

Funny you should mention Wikipedia. Forget Wikipedia on anything to do with the paranormal They were hit by a group called Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (GSoW). This is a real group you can look it up too if you like. They edited many Wikipedia articles on subjects and people in the paranormal field admittedly to have a Skeptical slant. Wikipedia is not big enough to monitor everything that goes on. It's been a big problem for those who care about these type of things.

I remember reading articles about parapsychologists on Wikipedia and then a few months later looking them up again and it was then all negative (and it was not that way before).

 

[dust1n]

Funny you should mention Wikipedia. Forget Wikipedia on anything to do with the paranormal They were hit by a group called Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (GSoW). This is a real group you can look it up too if you like. They edited many Wikipedia articles on subjects and people in the paranormal field admittedly to have a Skeptical slant. Wikipedia is not big enough to monitor everything that goes on. It's been a big problem for those who care about these type of things.

I remember reading articles about parapsychologists on Wikipedia and then a few months later looking them up again and it was then all negative (and it was not that way before).

Then, if you're willing, explain what the experiment is, what it is testing for, and how it establishes the existence of psi?

 

[leibowde84]

And let me clarify once more, because I felt like I missed something there. I don't think that God automatically conflicts with science. I think the belief in God automatically conflicts with science. A subtle, but important, distinction.

Very well put.

 

[leibowde84]

Conflicts with existing scientific knowledge, conflicts with the scientific method, or what?

The scientific method fo sho.

 

[leibowde84]

So you can't use science to directly test for God's existence. I agree with that. The only way a person could know for sure that God exists (if He does) is if He chose to reveal His existence to them in some way.

Right. And God has not done this scientifically in any way. People have made claims, but they don't know any better.