Is the Universe Conscious?

[Pwns]

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/un ... ncna772956

I have brought this point up before and will do so again....if I was discussing the ideas in the link in a high school science classroom no one would raise an eyebrow. But the minute you bring intelligent design in a science classroom the acolytes of the church of materialism/physicalism will pitch a hissy fit.

Can someone explain to me what the difference is? They're both ideas that are almost surely not falsifiable, but because ID is associated with religion, it's taboo within the scientific community in a way ideas like this aren't.

[Chizzang]

Okay first of all "one guy" is not "Scientists"
It's one guy...
and a few other guys that kind of maybe think it's meh..

And secondly
James Lovelock proposed this notion in the 1960's
He argued:
Using the standard measurement tools of homeostasis
one could logically argue the Earth self regulates like a living being
He then argued, what criteria do we then use to decide "What is alive..?"

Thirdly:
You eliminate "motivation" from your point - as all ID pushers do
and motivation is what is primarily argued against ID
true Science is not motivated to find a predetermined outcome
ID has one motive

Science is actually built to seek the truth
Religion is designed to fulfill wants
They have very different motivations

[kalm]

Those stars and comets (just like the ID creator) are assholes for blowing up and smashing into worlds.

Do they have no conscious?

[Pwns]

Okay first of all "one guy" is not "Scientists"
It's one guy...
and a few other guys that kind of maybe think it's meh..

And secondly
James Lovelock proposed this notion in the 1960's
He argued:
Using the standard measurement tools of homeostasis
one could logically argue the Earth self regulates like a living being
He then argued, what criteria do we then use to decide "What is alive..?"

Thirdly:
You eliminate "motivation" from your point - as all ID pushers do
and motivation is what is primarily argued against ID
true Science is not motivated to find a predetermined outcome
ID has one motive

Science is actually built to seek the truth
Religion is designed to fulfill wants
They have very different motivations

You proved my point in a way of conflating ID with religion. I've never heard anyone say "teach ID, not evolution". It's always teach the "controversy". Also, ID isn't always the six-day, everything-from-nothing, Adam-and-Eve-style creationism, either.

And yes, you don't have to tell me evolution has a lot more evidence while ID doesn't, but that isn't the point.

Is there any evidence for the cosmic consciousness theory? I don't believe it's ever been demonstrated that neurons use any kind of quantum effects to function.

[Chizzang]

Okay first of all "one guy" is not "Scientists"
It's one guy...
and a few other guys that kind of maybe think it's meh..

And secondly
James Lovelock proposed this notion in the 1960's
He argued:
Using the standard measurement tools of homeostasis
one could logically argue the Earth self regulates like a living being
He then argued, what criteria do we then use to decide "What is alive..?"

Thirdly:
You eliminate "motivation" from your point - as all ID pushers do
and motivation is what is primarily argued against ID
true Science is not motivated to find a predetermined outcome
ID has one motive

Science is actually built to seek the truth
Religion is designed to fulfill wants
They have very different motivations

You proved my point in a way of conflating ID with religion. I've never heard anyone say "teach ID, not evolution". It's always teach the "controversy". Also, ID isn't always the six-day, everything-from-nothing, Adam-and-Eve-style creationism, either.

And yes, you don't have to tell me evolution has a lot more evidence while ID doesn't, but that isn't the point.

Is there any evidence for the cosmic consciousness theory? I don't believe it's ever been demonstrated that neurons use any kind of quantum effects to function.

I'm not trying to disprove your point...
I'm trying to explain what you admit you don't understand

Think:
Motivation, then ask yourself the same questions again

Can we first agree to "DEFINE" the intelligent design hypothesis as:
Physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent creator.

Is that ^ the proper definition right there...?

[Aho Old Guy]

This just breaking from the year 1805, errrr, 2005 ...
The Dover Panda Trial

... we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)
A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)
The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)
The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)
Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not 'teaching' ID but instead is merely 'making students aware of it.' In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. ... an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching. ... Defendants' argument is a red herring because the Establishment Clause forbids not just 'teaching' religion, but any governmental action that endorses or has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion. (footnote 7 on page 46)
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. … It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (page 64) [for "contrived dualism", see false dilemma.]
[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pages 86–87)
ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)
Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)

All Hail Our Alien Sky-Lords

[SeattleGriz]

You proved my point in a way of conflating ID with religion. I've never heard anyone say "teach ID, not evolution". It's always teach the "controversy". Also, ID isn't always the six-day, everything-from-nothing, Adam-and-Eve-style creationism, either.

And yes, you don't have to tell me evolution has a lot more evidence while ID doesn't, but that isn't the point.

Is there any evidence for the cosmic consciousness theory? I don't believe it's ever been demonstrated that neurons use any kind of quantum effects to function.

I'm not trying to disprove your point...
I'm trying to explain what you admit you don't understand

Think:
Motivation, then ask yourself the same questions again

Can we first agree to "DEFINE" the intelligent design hypothesis as:
Physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent creator.

Is that ^ the proper definition right there...?

Did someone say Intelligent Design?!? Got here as fast as I could.

I don't know what the official stance is, but I think your definition is pretty close.

[Chizzang]

Okay amazingly we agree on the definition as:
"Physical and biological systems observed in the universe
result from purposeful design by an intelligent creator"

honestly this is a huge breakthrough
very rarely does an ID arguer ever actually settle on a definition of what they are arguing

So now that we understand what ID is
Does it tell us something about that designer..?

[Jjoey52]

For those interested in this topic there is a movie devoted to creation science, and yes it is science, on Netflix called "Is Genesis History?" Their is extensive study of the geological formations, fossils and wildlife in various parts of the country and world.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Vidav]

Okay first of all "one guy" is not "Scientists"
It's one guy...
and a few other guys that kind of maybe think it's meh..

And secondly
James Lovelock proposed this notion in the 1960's
He argued:
Using the standard measurement tools of homeostasis
one could logically argue the Earth self regulates like a living being
He then argued, what criteria do we then use to decide "What is alive..?"

Thirdly:
You eliminate "motivation" from your point - as all ID pushers do
and motivation is what is primarily argued against ID
true Science is not motivated to find a predetermined outcome
ID has one motive

Science is actually built to seek the truth
Religion is designed to fulfill wants
They have very different motivations

You proved my point in a way of conflating ID with religion. I've never heard anyone say "teach ID, not evolution". It's always teach the "controversy". Also, ID isn't always the six-day, everything-from-nothing, Adam-and-Eve-style creationism, either.

And yes, you don't have to tell me evolution has a lot more evidence while ID doesn't, but that isn't the point.

Is there any evidence for the cosmic consciousness theory? I don't believe it's ever been demonstrated that neurons use any kind of quantum effects to function.

ID is based on religion though. It just has a different name than creationism to try and sell it as something else. There is no controversy to teach in science class in regards to this. Now if you want to talk about it in theology class go right ahead.

[SeattleGriz]

You proved my point in a way of conflating ID with religion. I've never heard anyone say "teach ID, not evolution". It's always teach the "controversy". Also, ID isn't always the six-day, everything-from-nothing, Adam-and-Eve-style creationism, either.

And yes, you don't have to tell me evolution has a lot more evidence while ID doesn't, but that isn't the point.

Is there any evidence for the cosmic consciousness theory? I don't believe it's ever been demonstrated that neurons use any kind of quantum effects to function.

ID is based on religion though. It just has a different name than creationism to try and sell it as something else. There is no controversy to teach in science class in regards to this. Now if you want to talk about it in theology class go right ahead.

I think you are right, although I don't really pay much attention to it, for I also believe there could be a natural force that causes the increases in information which brings about the wholesale changes that evolution can't explain. Maybe the Universe is conscious and is able to create at will. Either way, it shows complex and specified information that is empiric to a designer.

[SeattleGriz]

Okay amazingly we agree on the definition as:
"Physical and biological systems observed in the universe
result from purposeful design by an intelligent creator"

honestly this is a huge breakthrough
very rarely does an ID arguer ever actually settle on a definition of what they are arguing

So now that we understand what ID is
Does it tell us something about that designer..?

Here is the official definition.

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

It also is to include Physics and Cosmology, origin of life and development of biological complexity.

[Chizzang]

Okay amazingly we agree on the definition as:
"Physical and biological systems observed in the universe
result from purposeful design by an intelligent creator"

honestly this is a huge breakthrough
very rarely does an ID arguer ever actually settle on a definition of what they are arguing

So now that we understand what ID is
Does it tell us something about that designer..?

Here is the official definition.

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

It also is to include Physics and Cosmology, origin of life and development of biological complexity.

You ID guys really need to have a global conference like Nicea
You need to get your story straight on what exactly is being manipulated by the hand of god
and what is left to its own devices and allowed to run its course



Those are VERY important distinctions that need to be made perfectly clear by the ID camp
Otherwise we're just playing tennis without the net
and it all starts to sound a bit like a Jimmy Swaggart science class

[SeattleGriz]

Here is the official definition.



It also is to include Physics and Cosmology, origin of life and development of biological complexity.

You ID guys really need to have a global conference like Nicea
You need to get your story straight on what exactly is being manipulated by the hand of god
and what is left to its own devices and allowed to run its course



Those are VERY important distinctions that need to be made perfectly clear by the ID camp
Otherwise we're just playing tennis without the net
and it all starts to sound a bit like a Jimmy Swaggart science class

I would say this is probably the most accurate definition, as it comes from the Discovery Institute.

[houndawg]

Okay first of all "one guy" is not "Scientists"
It's one guy...
and a few other guys that kind of maybe think it's meh..

And secondly
James Lovelock proposed this notion in the 1960's
He argued:
Using the standard measurement tools of homeostasis
one could logically argue the Earth self regulates like a living being
He then argued, what criteria do we then use to decide "What is alive..?"

Thirdly:
You eliminate "motivation" from your point - as all ID pushers do
and motivation is what is primarily argued against ID
true Science is not motivated to find a predetermined outcome
ID has one motive

Science is actually built to seek the truth
Religion is designed to fulfill wants
They have very different motivations

You proved my point in a way of conflating ID with religion. I've never heard anyone say "teach ID, not evolution". It's always teach the "controversy". Also, ID isn't always the six-day, everything-from-nothing, Adam-and-Eve-style creationism, either.

And yes, you don't have to tell me evolution has a lot more evidence while ID doesn't, but that isn't the point.

Is there any evidence for the cosmic consciousness theory? I don't believe it's ever been demonstrated that neurons use any kind of quantum effects to function.

Conscious evolution is the writing on the wall. - Donna the Buffalo

[Chizzang]

You ID guys really need to have a global conference like Nicea
You need to get your story straight on what exactly is being manipulated by the hand of god
and what is left to its own devices and allowed to run its course



Those are VERY important distinctions that need to be made perfectly clear by the ID camp
Otherwise we're just playing tennis without the net
and it all starts to sound a bit like a Jimmy Swaggart science class

I would say this is probably the most accurate definition, as it comes from the Discovery Institute.

You need to be careful with the Discovery Institutes ID format...
You might not like what you find

Some of their scientific reporting on ID describes a "maker" that plays no favorites
and loves NOT humanity
certainly not any more than it appears to care for insects or bacteria

It goes down a road distinctly NOT of Jesus or anything described in the Bible
Be careful...

TRUE ID:
All evidence suggests
God so loved the world he made malaria
and birth defects
and cares not for it's apes any more than its worms

A quote about "evidence"
"If one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of creation, it would appear that God has an inordinate fondness for beetles..."
Presently over 350,000 species of beetle has been discovered

[Ivytalk]

If the universe smoked all the reefer in the world, would it lose consciousness?

[Jjoey52]

Here is the official definition.



It also is to include Physics and Cosmology, origin of life and development of biological complexity.

You ID guys really need to have a global conference like Nicea
You need to get your story straight on what exactly is being manipulated by the hand of god
and what is left to its own devices and allowed to run its course



Those are VERY important distinctions that need to be made perfectly clear by the ID camp
Otherwise we're just playing tennis without the net
and it all starts to sound a bit like a Jimmy Swaggart science class

Watch the show on Netflix I mentioned, it explains ID in very specific science terms.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jjoey52]

You proved my point in a way of conflating ID with religion. I've never heard anyone say "teach ID, not evolution". It's always teach the "controversy". Also, ID isn't always the six-day, everything-from-nothing, Adam-and-Eve-style creationism, either.

And yes, you don't have to tell me evolution has a lot more evidence while ID doesn't, but that isn't the point.

Is there any evidence for the cosmic consciousness theory? I don't believe it's ever been demonstrated that neurons use any kind of quantum effects to function.

ID is based on religion though. It just has a different name than creationism to try and sell it as something else. There is no controversy to teach in science class in regards to this. Now if you want to talk about it in theology class go right ahead.

Wrong, see the scientific explantation and discard the evolutionists rhetoric.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Not if it went on a date with Bill Cosby

#NowThatsABlackHole

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Pwns]

I'm not trying to disprove your point...
I'm trying to explain what you admit you don't understand

Think:
Motivation, then ask yourself the same questions again

Can we first agree to "DEFINE" the intelligent design hypothesis as:
Physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent creator.

Is that ^ the proper definition right there...?

You basically are saying that you do hold a double standard.

Most ID people don't think science is evil despite what some fanatics say. There' no real sinister agenda to get rid of science.

[Jjoey52]

I'm not trying to disprove your point...
I'm trying to explain what you admit you don't understand

Think:
Motivation, then ask yourself the same questions again

Can we first agree to "DEFINE" the intelligent design hypothesis as:
Physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent creator.

Is that ^ the proper definition right there...?

You basically are saying that you do hold a double standard.

Most ID people don't think science is evil despite what some fanatics say. There' no real sinister agenda to get rid of science.

Especially when science proves creation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Vidav]

You basically are saying that you do hold a double standard.

Most ID people don't think science is evil despite what some fanatics say. There' no real sinister agenda to get rid of science.

Especially when science proves creation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Vidav]

ID is based on religion though. It just has a different name than creationism to try and sell it as something else. There is no controversy to teach in science class in regards to this. Now if you want to talk about it in theology class go right ahead.

Wrong, see the scientific explantation and discard the evolutionists rhetoric.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No, ID is tied to religion. It is rebranded creationism.

[Grizalltheway]

Especially when science proves creation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah, methinks Joey has been stuck in Joseph Smith land a little too long.