How Can We Have Laws of Science Without Design?

[JimBowie1958]

We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.

And yet all systems of laws are ordered and designed by their very nature.

So how does anyone that respects science not also recognize the design inherent in said laws?

 

[DriftingSand]

We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.

And yet all systems of laws are ordered and designed by their very nature.

So how does anyone that respects science not also recognize the design inherent in said laws?

Dang you. Quit making so much sense. You're gonna confuse the science community.

The Universe SCREAMS design.

 

[JimBowie1958]

We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.

And yet all systems of laws are ordered and designed by their very nature.

So how does anyone that respects science not also recognize the design inherent in said laws?

Dang you. Quit making so much sense. You're gonna confuse the science community.

The Universe SCREAMS design.

I agree.

It is meaningless to talk about natural laws if there is no design to them or their objects.

 

[emilynghiem]

We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.

And yet all systems of laws are ordered and designed by their very nature.

So how does anyone that respects science not also recognize the design inherent in said laws?

I find an interesting but disturbing parallel
in how some people cannot imagine not believing in God
and others cannot imagine not believing in Government.

on another forum, two people denied there were any "natural laws" self-existent
but "all laws were created by humans" so I brought up the parallel with laws of
science and how we didn't invent those when we developed language for expressing them.

With God and with Govt, I find as many people "assume this authority is a GIVEN"
and cannot imagine any views outside or against their own,
but assume those "aren't valid beliefs" and something else is wrong with that person!

I think people's brains are wired differently.

I used to think that by offering the same information, and correcting missing information,
this would resolve any contradictions and conflicts, and then things could change and people could reach agreement that we mean the same things.
Then I thought by "forgiving" the differences the EMOTIONS could be set aside, and then things could be reconciled even where people don't won't or can't change their views.

Now I've come to the conclusion some people's psychological perception
is just not designed to understand or see things outside the way they are designed.
It's not a mental illness or error in perception, but some minds just can't
register some things because they are not designed to.
So it's not a matter of misinformation or missing information,
and not just about forgiving conflicts to stop carrying emotions or projecting biases.

But actually having such different perceptions they cannot perceive of the others;
and no manner of logical or emotional change is going to affect that. it just isn't there.

the issue of religion is one thing, because generally people agree to respect
different religions except when this gets into politics where people will fight and push.

but the issue of "political beliefs" is where I find the MOST disturbing conflicts.
If people "cannot help" but be prolife or prochoice, or for or against
right to health care through govt, how are we supposed to make policies
based on one set of views and excluding the other? the issue of gay marriage
brought up religious beliefs that people "assumed was political bigotry" and
"could not understand it any other way" because of how their minds work.
How pointless is it to keep projecting blame for the differences back and forth
if neither side can help how they perceive the issue itself, OR the other perspective?

What will it take for BOTH sides of these issues to realize the other
cannot help but see it that way? it is not just "political agenda," which implies choice.

How would public policy change regarding political beliefs and biases, if people came to
an understanding on how to treat, respect and protect these equally?

Would we stop the political bullying and paying to override the other's votes and voice?

Sorry if I went off on politics, but in general I have run into a VERY similar situation
with people believing in Government but NOT SEEING there are "natural laws" in existence that give authority to people without having to rely on Govt or Party. So people who don't see that, only see going through their Party to have any say in this "man made Govt."

I thought this could change if conflicts were resolved, and if people were empowered with education, experience and training in self-government.

Instead I found that maybe such people are designed to respond to party leaders
and structure and have NO SENSE at all, no perception or connection to government authority directly by natural laws and conscience. They just don't see or feel it that way.
Very disturbing. Still not over this yet. That political beliefs are that embedded, where people could not choose to change even if they wanted to. We are programmed differently.

 

[DriftingSand]

The irreducible complexity of the eye and the cell speak volumes. Each component of both would have to have "evolved" simultaneous to all the other parts in order for each to function. But no organism could have seen anything without a totally functioning eye.

The question then becomes: If an organism was able to live, function, and thrive without sight then why was there a need to "evolve" an eye in the first place?

 

[Pennywise]

What a great impetus for discussion. Think about Math. Is it an invented discipline or is it a Universal Truth?

Is there a speed at which sound travels? What is speed? Can it be measured by a truth? Or is it measured arbitrarily?

 

[DriftingSand]

Anyone in their right mind will look at something designed and know that there is a designer. Certainly nobody could conclude that a Corvette (complete with engine, transmission, cooling system, etc.) fell into place by mistake -- would they? And yet the human cell and functioning eyeball is more complex than a Corvette.

 

[emilynghiem]

Anyone in their right mind will look at something designed and know that there is a designer. Certainly nobody could conclude that a Corvette (complete with engine, transmission, cooling system, etc.) fell into place by mistake -- would they? And yet the human cell and functioning eyeball is more complex than a Corvette.

Yes and no.

I've run into people with a wide range of beliefs, even within atheism or nontheism.
Some can understand and work with the concept of "intelligent design"
but just can't wrap their brains around a SOURCE or CREATOR, personified or not.

People who see the whole world as a living thing or sufficient system in itself
might see it as self-existent, with no beginning and no end, and "just is"
and does not need a beginning or source. the whole itself is what it is.

Regardless which way they see it, I approach people open ended, either way:
1. if they see things as coming from a source, so that all things can be
seen as coming from this source and diversifying from there
2. if they see things "as a whole" and not connected to any one source,
much less as a personified figure

the same laws should still operate and apply, either way.
so the discussion is about "how do the laws and process work"
within the world as we see it, regardless of the source if there is one.

What I find matters most is the degree we are able to FORGIVE differences
in perception, especially where we are not going to change them and have
to work around these differences or conflicts the best we can.

If two people are not equally forgiving, they can be two Christians or both
Theists and not be able to work out an agreement on what is true about something.
The denomination or label is not so important as the ability to forgive in order to work out issues.

And as long as people choose to be forgiving, they can have views as radically opposed
as a gay atheist and a Christian who believes in healing homosexuality as not being natural,
and still work things out where they agree. (Believe it or not, I have two friends who are THAT different and dedicated to work on criminal justice
reform and outreach, because they know the other person does work in the community they can't do.
they both forgive their differences, or else they wouldn't get anywhere on the purpose they share in common.)

If we can't forgive but fear and attack differences, that is the biggest obstacle I have found.
It wasn't coming from the different belief systems per se, but whether we rejected or blamed each other or not that made the difference in resolving conflicts.

If any views are going to change, it would be in that context anyway, because most changes occur mutually, as a give and take, where both sides are equally willing to stretch to understand where the other is coming from. Most of the changes I have seen are changes in "perception of the other person's view" and very rarely in converting anyone.

Most people I know stick to their "native" language or ways, and expand or "add" to their knowledge and understanding from sharing with other people of different perspectives.

 

[DriftingSand]

Anyone in their right mind will look at something designed and know that there is a designer. Certainly nobody could conclude that a Corvette (complete with engine, transmission, cooling system, etc.) fell into place by mistake -- would they? And yet the human cell and functioning eyeball is more complex than a Corvette.

Yes and no.

I've run into people with a wide range of beliefs, even within atheism or nontheism.
Some can understand and work with the concept of "intelligent design"
but just can't wrap their brains around a SOURCE or CREATOR, personified or not.

People who see the whole world as a living thing or sufficient system in itself
might see it as self-existent, with no beginning and no end, and "just is"
and does not need a beginning or source. the whole itself is what it is.

Regardless which way they see it, I approach people open ended, either way:
1. if they see things as coming from a source, so that all things can be
seen as coming from this source and diversifying from there
2. if they see things "as a whole" and not connected to any one source,
much less as a personified figure

the same laws should still operate and apply, either way.
so the discussion is about "how do the laws and process work"
within the world as we see it, regardless of the source if there is one.

What I find matters most is the degree we are able to FORGIVE differences
in perception, especially where we are not going to change them and have
to work around these differences or conflicts the best we can.

If two people are not equally forgiving, they can be two Christians or both
Theists and not be able to work out an agreement on what is true about something.
The denomination or label is not so important as the ability to forgive in order to work out issues.

And as long as people choose to be forgiving, they can have views as radically opposed
as a gay atheist and a Christian who believes in healing homosexuality as not being natural,
and still work things out where they agree. (Believe it or not, I have two friends who are THAT different and dedicated to work on criminal justice
reform and outreach, because they know the other person does work in the community they can't do.
they both forgive their differences, or else they wouldn't get anywhere on the purpose they share in common.)

If we can't forgive but fear and attack differences, that is the biggest obstacle I have found.
It wasn't coming from the different belief systems per se, but whether we rejected or blamed each other or not that made the difference in resolving conflicts.

If any views are going to change, it would be in that context anyway, because most changes occur mutually, as a give and take, where both sides are equally willing to stretch to understand where the other is coming from. Most of the changes I have seen are changes in "perception of the other person's view" and very rarely in converting anyone.

Most people I know stick to their "native" language or ways, and expand or "add" to their knowledge and understanding from sharing with other people of different perspectives.

I think the biggest road block is folks' inability to believe that there is a power greater than themselves and more intelligent than their finite minds and limited intelligence. Perhaps your earlier quote is right: not everyone is wired or "designed" to grasp what others have no problem grasping. In similar fashion, some folks can walk across a canyon on a high wire with ease while most others wouldn't even attempt it. They're not "wired" to overcome that sort of fear or they were gifted with that sort of balance and/or concentration level.

 

[Old Rocks]

The irreducible complexity of the eye and the cell speak volumes. Each component of both would have to have "evolved" simultaneous to all the other parts in order for each to function. But no organism could have seen anything without a totally functioning eye.

The question then becomes: If an organism was able to live, function, and thrive without sight then why was there a need to "evolve" an eye in the first place?

Irreducible complexity. Utter bullshit. You can find every stage in the developement of the eye in living creatures today. In fact, Darwin did a fine analysis of this. You dummys should at least do minimal research before making asses of yourselves.

 

[Old Rocks]

File:Stages in the evolution of the eye.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Old Rocks]

I have no problem with there being a Diety, or lack of a Diety. What I have a problem with is the concept that some people can speak for this Diety. Usually to the death of those they dislike.

I also have an extreme dislike to the perversion of religion. Like those that kill in the name of Christ.

Being an agnostic, that is, I really have no idea if there is a Diety or not, I simply measure someones religion or ideology on how well it agrees with the reality of the universe. Thus far, I would have to say that I see the basics of the Native American ideas concerning a Diety, or Great Spirit, as closer to something I could accept than the major religions coming out of the Near East.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I have no problem with there being a Diety, or lack of a Diety. What I have a problem with is the concept that some people can speak for this Diety. Usually to the death of those they dislike.

I also have an extreme dislike to the perversion of religion. Like those that kill in the name of Christ.

Being an agnostic, that is, I really have no idea if there is a Diety or not, I simply measure someones religion or ideology on how well it agrees with the reality of the universe. Thus far, I would have to say that I see the basics of the Native American ideas concerning a Diety, or Great Spirit, as closer to something I could accept than the major religions coming out of the Near East.

So when was the last time Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict or Pope Francis called for the killing of anyone?

Hell, they don't even agree with the death penalty any more, much less killing in the Name of God.

Your view of the church seems to be a collage of the medieval and modern evangelicalism.

 

[DriftingSand]

The irreducible complexity of the eye and the cell speak volumes. Each component of both would have to have "evolved" simultaneous to all the other parts in order for each to function. But no organism could have seen anything without a totally functioning eye.

The question then becomes: If an organism was able to live, function, and thrive without sight then why was there a need to "evolve" an eye in the first place?

Irreducible complexity. Utter bullshit. You can find every stage in the developement of the eye in living creatures today. In fact, Darwin did a fine analysis of this. You dummys should at least do minimal research before making asses of yourselves.

Remove your iris and "see" how far you get. Not very far, I'm afraid.

 

[DriftingSand]

The irreducible complexity of the eye and the cell speak volumes. Each component of both would have to have "evolved" simultaneous to all the other parts in order for each to function. But no organism could have seen anything without a totally functioning eye.

The question then becomes: If an organism was able to live, function, and thrive without sight then why was there a need to "evolve" an eye in the first place?

Irreducible complexity. Utter bullshit. You can find every stage in the developement of the eye in living creatures today. In fact, Darwin did a fine analysis of this. You dummys should at least do minimal research before making asses of yourselves.

Have you ever read "Darwin's Black Box" by the NON-RELIGIOUS SCIENTIST, Michael Behe? Very well written and documented. You can't discount it unless and until you've read it. Plenty of "research" right there.

Oh ... and "dummys" is spelled dummies (and I'm the dummy?).

 

[JakeStarkey]

I understand clearly what you are trying to say, but philosophy does not cover the gap of design and designer.

I believe that, yes, there is a Designer, but I can't prove it with the evidence we have.

Thus I have faith not knowledge. Neither do you.

 

[orogenicman]

The irreducible complexity of the eye and the cell speak volumes. Each component of both would have to have "evolved" simultaneous to all the other parts in order for each to function. But no organism could have seen anything without a totally functioning eye.

The question then becomes: If an organism was able to live, function, and thrive without sight then why was there a need to "evolve" an eye in the first place?

Nonsense. There are hundreds of different types of sensory apparatus that we call eyes, none exactly alike, all performing their function according to the needs of the species in which they are found. And some animals do perfectly well without them. Blind cave fish used to have eyes (indicating that they once lived above ground in bodies of water exposed to sunlight), but have lost the ability to see since they now live in a world of 24-hour total darkness.

The ability to see confers an evolutionary advantage to organisms that have vision because it is an efficient means of detecting predators and/or prey.

 

[orogenicman]

I have no problem with there being a Diety, or lack of a Diety. What I have a problem with is the concept that some people can speak for this Diety. Usually to the death of those they dislike.

I also have an extreme dislike to the perversion of religion. Like those that kill in the name of Christ.

Being an agnostic, that is, I really have no idea if there is a Diety or not, I simply measure someones religion or ideology on how well it agrees with the reality of the universe. Thus far, I would have to say that I see the basics of the Native American ideas concerning a Diety, or Great Spirit, as closer to something I could accept than the major religions coming out of the Near East.

So when was the last time Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict or Pope Francis called for the killing of anyone?

Hell, they don't even agree with the death penalty any more, much less killing in the Name of God.

Your view of the church seems to be a collage of the medieval and modern evangelicalism.

The Catholic Church's refusal to allow contraception has resulted in hundreds of thousands of STD deaths in Africa alone, particularly from AIDS. Worldwide, it could well be in the millions.

 

[orogenicman]

The irreducible complexity of the eye and the cell speak volumes. Each component of both would have to have "evolved" simultaneous to all the other parts in order for each to function. But no organism could have seen anything without a totally functioning eye.

The question then becomes: If an organism was able to live, function, and thrive without sight then why was there a need to "evolve" an eye in the first place?

Irreducible complexity. Utter bullshit. You can find every stage in the developement of the eye in living creatures today. In fact, Darwin did a fine analysis of this. You dummys should at least do minimal research before making asses of yourselves.

Have you ever read "Darwin's Black Box" by the NON-RELIGIOUS SCIENTIST, Michael Behe? Very well written and documented. You can't discount it unless and until you've read it. Plenty of "research" right there.

Oh ... and "dummys" is spelled dummies (and I'm the dummy?).

Trust me. Michael Behe is not respected in the scientific community. His entire critique within that book has long been refuted not only by other scientists (and even scientists within his own department), but was refuted in Federal court (see the Dover decision).

 

[ABikerSailor]

I have no problem with there being a Diety, or lack of a Diety. What I have a problem with is the concept that some people can speak for this Diety. Usually to the death of those they dislike.

I also have an extreme dislike to the perversion of religion. Like those that kill in the name of Christ.

Being an agnostic, that is, I really have no idea if there is a Diety or not, I simply measure someones religion or ideology on how well it agrees with the reality of the universe. Thus far, I would have to say that I see the basics of the Native American ideas concerning a Diety, or Great Spirit, as closer to something I could accept than the major religions coming out of the Near East.

So when was the last time Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict or Pope Francis called for the killing of anyone?

Hell, they don't even agree with the death penalty any more, much less killing in the Name of God.

Your view of the church seems to be a collage of the medieval and modern evangelicalism.

Good question................when DID the last Pope call for the killing of anyone?

I present to you the Inquisition, or if you prefer, the Crusades.

Next?