A question - Intelligent Design

[CivilLiberty]

And to clarify - when I say there "is no god" what I mean is, there "is no sentient omnipotent judgmental being that exerts conditional control over the universe".


Or put another way, "I don't believe in god, I believe in chaos theory".


Regards,


Andy

 

[manu1959]

andy,

i am not a christian and i am tired of being insulted...boodah must be proud of you.

bye bye

 

[CivilLiberty]

andy,
i am not a christian and i am tired of being insulted...boodah must be proud of you.
bye bye

Hmmm... okay, how did I insult you?


Regards


Andy

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Einstein was a high functioning autistic (Augsperger syndrome). What is sometimes referred to as a "savant" (though "idiot savant" is too extreme here).

His enormous aptitude for mathematics and physics is unquestionable. However, he proved himself a literal dunce in other areas of life.

Also, did he have a"belief in god" or was he a creationist that actually disbelieved in evolution?

Regards,

Andy


God is a figment of man's ego.

Ah, but it was exactly Einstein's super knowledge of science - the one area of his life in which he excelled - that led him to acknowledge the existence of God.

If he believed in a Creator of the Universe, logically he would have to believe that evolution fell under the purvue of the Creator as well, wouldn't you think?

 

[KarlMarx]

To assert that God doesn't exist just because you can't prove that He exists or can't imagine that He exists doesn't necessarily prove that He doesn't exist. Also, to assert that God doesn't exist just because you can't prove He exists is somewhat arrogant. That just implies that you know all things, which no one can. There are things that even Man cannot understand. If you'd like an example, pick up a heavy duty book on Super String Theory and try to get past the table of contents!

No one has been able to synthesize DNA or even amino acids from simple hydrocarbons and ammonia to this day. Even with an intelligent agent (i.e. a scientist) intervening, the synthesis of DNA is proving to be elusive. From this evidence, I conclude that DNA just appearing out of a soup of chemicals then assembling itself into sentient beings on its own is not very likely.

And to top that off, if DNA weren't complicated enough, consider matter. Atoms are not simple things, they are each composed of nuetrons, protons, and electrons. The neutrons and protons are composed of three quarks each, which pass photons and gluons back and forth in order to keep the atom together. And that is the matter we are familiar with. There are four classes of quarks (top, bottom, strange and charm), most of the observable matter in the universe is composed of one family of quarks, but more exotic forms exist. Then there is the issue of dark matter, which has not yet been detected, but is thought to exist. In fact, most of the universe is believed to be made of dark matter. Of course, there is also the force of gravity, which is thought to be carried by the "graviton" particle. No one has been able to observe the graviton, nor detect it, so far, it is a theoretical particle.... but scientists have faith that it exists.

The theory of evolution assumes a "static earth" i.e. that the Earth remained unchanged (except for climatic changes) for eons. That isn't true. Asteroids have repeatedly hit the Earth and wiped out most of the life on the planet. The magnetic field of the Earth has collapsed and realigned itself many times, too. During such events, radiation from the sun could easily get to the Earth's surface to produce mutations. Evolution may just be nature filling the holes back in or simply successful mutations that lived to produce offspring.

Einstein had Asperger's syndrome, which is a highly functioning form of autism. People afflicted with this condition are not "dunces", but extremely bright. Bill Gates is thought to be another person with this condition. I have a son with the condition and his ability to remember places and facts is simply astounding. He also can listen to a musical piece once or twice then play it on his flute. And then there is Russian History, don't get him started on that.... unless you want to hear a lecture on the czars from Ivan the Terrible to Nicholas the Second.. He also is very good at speaking French and is on the honor roll. Yet at the same time, some things elude him, common sense is not his strong point (of course, it isn't for most teenagers, either). Forgive me for bragging, but I had to say something about people with Asperger's syndrone.

Einstein did believe in God, as is evidenced by his famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe". I believe that he did not subscribe to the concept of a Judeo-Christian God, but in a God, nonetheless.

 

[KarlMarx]

If we can waste money to test the possibility of getting cancer while eating carrots in the shower, we can certainly spend money on this type of research...

oooooh!!!! Eating carrots in the shower! That sounds kinky! Do you have to wear a rubber bunny suit when you do it??

 

[no1tovote4]

4) Some IDers (and some creationists) seem interested in "data fitting" selected facts to "fit" their specified conjecture. IDers have attempted to make a distinction known as "Micro" and "Macro" evolution in an attempt to reconcile creationism with the facts of evolution. (That is, as scientific evidence builds, they concede to the facts).

5) Evolutionists are scientists, who are interested in drawing conclusions from evidence and facts, as opposed to "data fitting" facts to fit conjecture.



It's important to point out that science of evolution is all about the study of the development of the natural world. ID is a conjecture of "what might have happened", and lacking support in any form of evidence.

ID, then, is not a science, it is a philosophy.


--
ID BY GOD:

ID by "god" asserts that there is an omnipotent and sentient "supreme being", that manipulate(s) nature to achieve certain ends.

In order for this theory to be true, it requires that there actually be a "god". There is no way to prove the existence of a God - unless it were to make itself known to us directly, nor is there any proof that there IS a god. Therefore, it is impossible to prove this form of ID.
--
ID BY SPACE ALIENS

ID by "Space Aliens" asserts that at least at some point, or many points, space aliens planted DNA seed, or manipulated developing DNA.

In order for this theory to be true, it requires that there actually be "space aliens". There is no way to prove the existence of a Space Aliens - unless they are to make themselves known to us directly, nor is there any proof that there ARE space aliens. Therefore, it is impossible to prove this form of ID.
--


Either of these ID conjectures is equally valid, and equally invalid. They are suppositions with no supporting evidence.



CHAOTIC DESIGN

This is not "intelligent" design in that it does not require a sentient being to manipulate evolution with forethought.

Chaotic design is that of random chance, with "failing" chances eliminated though natural selection, and "Successful" outcomes being reinforced by selection.

Chaotic design does not require the existence of a "higher power" or even "space aliens". All it needs is a chaotic environment (which we have) and lots of time (the last 3.5 billion years is plenty).


Evidence of chaotic systems abound - please show me evidence of god or space aliens.




Best Regards,


Andy

Andy,

Evidence has been put forward with many websites that shows that ID isn't some ridiculous flat-earth subset of ideologues but actual scientists working with evidence and creating hypotheses with the same scientific method as those that are filling in the gaps in evolution with chaotic design examples. With experimentation and observation it will be possible to see if one theory wins over the other but there hasn't been enough observed data to make a conclusion as of yet.

Saying they are "data fillers" and simply ignoring all evidence that may point in a different direction than the "theory of the day" scientists that refuse to look in any other direction than the one they are traveling is simply disingenuous. That type of science pushed the flat-earth theory way beyond its logical term and creates a "faith" based on one specific theory that has yet to be proven or even have full evidence collected on it and traps science into one mindset.

Both of these are theories that are being worked with the scientific method, saying one is better is a matter of opinion at this point. Saying that scientists that work towards proving one of the theories are all flat-earth type scientists is simply ignoring evidence or floccinaucinihilipilficating without regard to valid questions that have not been answered by the other theory.

I have not said that your theory is wrong or that scientists are foolish to attempt to prove the theory of chaotic development rather than intelligent design but you seem to have that attitude about ID.

You seem to think that all the evidence of ID is based on evidence of Aliens or on God, but they are not. As I said there is evidence that created questions that were not being answered by the theory of chaotic development, therefore a hypothesis has been created and observations and experiments are being done to back up a theory that may fill in those particular blank spots and questions. Finding their theory to be true may actually be evidence of Aliens or God but proving Aliens or God to be in existence is not necessary to prove the theory of ID, observation and experimentation will be enough for that. If it is proven that ID was how we were created we can then look for our "Creators", but it isn't necessary to prove their existence to prove this theory.

For me the jury is still out, either can be true and it won't hurt my feelings or my belief system if either turns out to be true.

 

[no1tovote4]

no1tovote4-- I can't make you see that one "guess" has infinitely more empyirical data supporting it than the other. Enough evidence to be able to call it something more than a guess. However, as you don't seem interested in finding out for yourself how solid the "theory" of evolution is, we'll call it an educated guess. Making the leap of faith and connecting the numberless dots with the concept of "Intelligent Design" (God done it) you abandon empirical evidence, and your guess does not become an educated one, it becomes a truly faith-based one.

I have faith that I will wake up tomorrow and the world will be more or less the same. Day will be light, up will be up, etc. etc. However, it is FAITH. I cannot prove to you that tomorrow will exist as today did. Would you put this on par with the belief in a god-thing, in terms of long leaps of faith? I think not.

I obviously, regardless of evidence presented to you before, cannot make you see that there is evidence of both and therefore both theories are being investigated and that there is nothing wrong with that.

You seem to think that science should only spend time on the one theory that you believe is the truth and I present to you that that particular practice created "scientists" that believed beyond actual proof that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Educated guesses are still guesses and in this case both theories have evidence to support their theories and are being tested by scientific method. There is no reason or basis with which to simply decide that one set of scientists are all morons working only on faith and the other are all geniuses that have seen the light.


Evidence shows that some pieces of the evolutionary cycle are not proven or backed up by anything other than those educated guesses and that some pieces of the puzzle are too complex in theory for chaotic development to have created them therefore testing is being done to see if that theory is correct. Scientific process can prove one or the other to be true but ignoring a theory because it doesn't match yours is simply not scientific but a leap of faith in itself.

 

[dilloduck]

I obviously, regardless of evidence presented to you before, cannot make you see that there is evidence of both and therefore both theories are being investigated and that there is nothing wrong with that.

You seem to think that science should only spend time on the one theory that you believe is the truth and I present to you that that particular practice created "scientists" that believed beyond actual proof that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Educated guesses are still guesses and in this case both theories have evidence to support their theories and are being tested by scientific method. There is no reason or basis with which to simply decide that one set of scientists are all morons working no faith and the other are all geniuses that have seen the light.


Evidence shows that some pieces of the evolutionary cycle are not proven or backed up by anything other than those educated guesses and that some pieces of the puzzle are too complex in theory for chaotic development to have created them therefore testing is being done to see if that theory is correct. Scientific process can prove one or the other to be true but ignoring a theory because it doesn't match yours is simply not scientific but a leap of faith in itself.

Agreed---any scientist worth his salt would pursue ALL theories until resolution. We are looking for a causative event or events here. Has the "God did it" theory been totally disproved? I think not!

 

[CivilLiberty]

Ah, but it was exactly Einstein's super knowledge of science - the one area of his life in which he excelled - that led him to acknowledge the existence of God.

If he believed in a Creator of the Universe, logically he would have to believe that evolution fell under the purvue of the Creator as well, wouldn't you think?

No, I wouldn't. Here is Einstein's quote:

Einstein said, "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts."


I think that's pretty clear, and without question denies a "sentient" god, such as one that would be "creationistic".

Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

Andy,
Evidence has been put forward with many websites that shows that ID isn't some ridiculous flat-earth subset of ideologues but actual scientists working with evidence and creating hypotheses with the same scientific method as those that are filling in the gaps in evolution with chaotic design examples.

Okay - I've yet to see any that weren't as I described - pick a few and post the links, I'd like to examine their methodology.



Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

Agreed---any scientist worth his salt would pursue ALL theories until resolution. We are looking for a causative event or events here. Has the "God did it" theory been totally disproved? I think not!

No, they pursue the "theory at hand", not "all" theories simultaneously. Nevertheless, there have been plenty of scientists that pursue the question of "ID or Evo", and the results that I've seen invariably conclude that ID has no support where Evo does. Please show me otherwise.


Andy

 

[no1tovote4]

Okay - I've yet to see any that weren't as I described - pick a few and post the links, I'd like to examine their methodology.



Andy

Here is a good website that has ID and EVO balanced in debate with scientists. It is a cool back and forth where one article is directly followed by another showing why their argument might be incorrect. It flows like an interesting conversation.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html


However to say that the scientists on this site that argue for ID are not within scientific possibility and have backed up their statements with no evidence at all is irrefutably incorrect.

 

[no1tovote4]

Here is a good book that also follows the open discussion that the website did, with arguments for and against both sides of the equation.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1694&program=News-CSC

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No, I wouldn't. Here is Einstein's quote:

Einstein said, "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts."

I think that's pretty clear, and without question denies a "sentient" god, such as one that would be "creationistic".



Andy

Einstein did not come to believe in a "sentient" God but an impersonal creator God. His belief was based upon his observations of science.

In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html

So therefore wouldn't you think that Einstein would also believe that God also reveals himself in the "orderly harmony" of evolution? Makes logical sense to me.

And following along this line of reasoning we could deduce that Einstein, a man of science, was essentially a "creationist". That this isn't being taught in the schools is a travesty.

 

[dilloduck]

No, they pursue the "theory at hand", not "all" theories simultaneously. Nevertheless, there have been plenty of scientists that pursue the question of "ID or Evo", and the results that I've seen invariably conclude that ID has no support where Evo does. Please show me otherwise.


Andy

Well no wonder there is more scientific support for Evo---that's all they look for------ID would take what is their holy grail of science and blow it all to hell!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"floccinaucinihilipilficating" ???

 

[CivilLiberty]

So therefore wouldn't you think that Einstein would also believe that God also reveals himself in the "orderly harmony" of evolution? Makes logical sense to me.

And following along this line of reasoning we could deduce that Einstein, a man of science, was essentially a "creationist". That this isn't being taught in the schools is a travesty.

"Orderly Harmony of Evolution" is not creationism. Orderly harmony of evolution by the "hand of god" would fall under ID.

MY POINT: you can't just say the Einstein believed in God, and then make the illogical leap that therefore he was a creationist.


Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

Well no wonder there is more scientific support for Evo---that's all they look for------ID would take what is their holy grail of science and blow it all to hell!

There are plenty of scientists that have been looking for ID as well. If they had real peer reviewed evidence, then you know we' hear about it all over the media. Especially Faux News.


Andy

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"Orderly Harmony of Evolution" is not creationism. Orderly harmony of evolution by the "hand of god" would fall under ID.

MY POINT: you can't just say the Einstein believed in God, and then make the illogical leap that therefore he was a creationist.


Andy

You're changing the meaning of what I said by leaving out stuff.
I said "wouldn't you think that Einstein would also believe that God also reveals himself in the "orderly harmony" of evolution?" Since Einstein came to believe in God as the Creator of the Universe, as the Creator of the Orderly Harmony, I believe evolution falls within the category of the universe/orderly harmony.

If God created it all, then He also created evolution. (you do understand Set Theory?)