Intelligent Design/Creationism/Religion

[SeattleGriz]

The sad part Native, is that if you were to propose that the Intelligent Designer was actually aliens that "seeded" the Earth, all of a sudden, it would be all okay by many that despise Christianity.

Now, that would make a great sci-fi movie, but is improbable. However, the possibility that some of the building blocks of life hitched a ride on a comet or asteroid as it crashed into earth is not out of the realm of possibility.

Not only did they seed the Earth, but they did it so they could come back and eat us all for food. As long as we are talking sci-fi, lets throw in some horror as well!

[BlueHen86]

Now, that would make a great sci-fi movie, but is improbable. However, the possibility that some of the building blocks of life hitched a ride on a comet or asteroid as it crashed into earth is not out of the realm of possibility.

Not only did they seed the Earth, but they did it so they could come back and eat us all for food. As long as we are talking sci-fi, lets throw in some horror as well!

Sounds like an old Twilight Zone episode.

"To Serve Man" - it's a cookbook!

[youngterrier]

That's all fine and well from a philosophy standpoint, but not from a scientific standpoint. That is not open for debate. There is no sound science that can truly justify teaching ID in the science curriculum.

Also, Aquinas didn't have access to modern scientific evidence, you do. He can be excused for his fantasies, you can't.

I never said ID should be taught in schools.

There is nothing about modern science that negates any of Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God. In fact, one of his points was that the existence of God was neither self-evident nor unprovable.

What in modern science has proven that God does not exist?

BTW, my "fantasy" is not a fantasy at all. I believe that man perceives and understands, through his knowledge and sensory experiences, merely the tip of the iceberg of what is real or true. There are scientific and philosophical truths that we have not even begun to grasp. To rule out the existence of God based on what we know or experience is the ultimate rush to judgment (in fact, that is precisely the shortcoming of modern atheism).

Do you think differently?

I was going to throw some Ayn Rand junk out there about science/reason never having to prove somethings nonexistence, but I'll be told I'm wrong so there's not point

[death dealer]

Now, that would make a great sci-fi movie, but is improbable. However, the possibility that some of the building blocks of life hitched a ride on a comet or asteroid as it crashed into earth is not out of the realm of possibility.

Not only did they seed the Earth, but they did it so they could come back and eat us all for food. As long as we are talking sci-fi, lets throw in some horror as well!

Sounds good to me! Let's pitch it!

[andy7171]

[JohnStOnge]

I didn't say it was easy. You're a smart guy, so don't play dumb, or try to add words to my statement to make it easier for you to attack. That makes you look either stupid, or unable to debate my statement. I know you are very capable of sticking to a debate of my original statement. So please do so.

This is the statement you made that I interpreted as saying is was easy:

And based on his design work on the planet and the universe, he would have failed out of most decent engineering programs in the first year.

I think it's reasonable to interpret that as saying it was relatively easy. You appear to be suggesting that someone who can make it through the first year of a decent engineering program could do better.

[JohnStOnge]

I've heard a lot about this intelligent design theory, but I've never heard the theory itself stated. Perhaps you could help us, John, by stating the Theory of Intelligent Design/Creationism?

As you probably already know, proponents of Intelligent Design theory hold that it is distinct from Creationism in that Creationism holds to a particular religous text while Intelligent Design simply holds that there is an intelligence behind things. As you probably also already know, "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. " The quote is from http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

By the way, I do think natural selection as a principle has been directly observed. At the same time, I suspect that there is an intelligence behind what we see. I also believe that a Big Bang occurred. The problem comes with what precipitated the Big Bang. I've read some pretty interesting stuff, such as purporting that a Bayesian probability analysis indicates it is "more likely" that it started with a singularity (timeless, dimensionless point) rather than with an intelligent initiator. But I haven't seen what I think is a satisfactory hypothesis. For instance, with the discussion I just mentioned, the problem is that Bayesian probability involves including the belief of the investigator. You have to include a "prior" probability. The "prior" probability could be objective in a sense if it's based on previous studies or something. But in this case there's no way to do that. So you're basically including the opinion of the guy making the argument in the probability analysis.

I tried finding the link just now but couldn't immediately and I don't have time to look for it.

[houndawg]

We have discovered some 200 planets; the better our instruments get, the more planets we find. This morning they're talking about a newly discovered system with at least 5 and maybe 7 planets.

Does this mean that Jesus is some sort of regional manager for this corner of the galaxy? I mean it's hard to picture other worlds taking him seriously when he doesn't even have the right number of tentacles.

[houndawg]

I've heard a lot about this intelligent design theory, but I've never heard the theory itself stated. Perhaps you could help us, John, by stating the Theory of Intelligent Design/Creationism?

As you probably already know, proponents of Intelligent Design theory hold that it is distinct from Creationism in that Creationism holds to a particular religous text while Intelligent Design simply holds that there is an intelligence behind things. As you probably also already know, "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. " The quote is from http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

By the way, I do think natural selection as a principle has been directly observed. At the same time, I suspect that there is an intelligence behind what we see.

Well, I don't rule that out, but, is it an intelligence that has any interest in, or is aware of us? What if we're just a microscopic contaminant in some lab experiment?

[JohnStOnge]

I would look to see if anybody said that in order to be a theory something has to be "falsifiable." That statement has become fashionable in discussions of Intelligent Design. But it's not true. "Falsiviability" is a philosophy of science, not a rule of the scientific method. And it's not really what's done with a very common tool of scientific inquiry. I'm talking about statistical hypothesis testing.

The falsifiability philosophy is the idea that science proceeds by attempting to show a hypothesis to be false and failing to do so. If there's no way to show it to be false then it can't be a theory.

But in statistical hypothesis testing the investigator attempts to show the hypothesis to be true by inferring that the assumption that it is NOT true is false. You start with the assumption that there is no effect. Then you infer that the assumption of NO effect is false. If you infer that the assumption of NO effect is false then you've inferred that the hypothesis of effect is true.

In fact the hypothesis of "there is effect" can NEVER be falsified through statistical hypothesis testing.

[JohnStOnge]

The evidence suggesting that there is some intelligence behind what we see around us is all around you. Take your blinders off.

what evidence? It makes just as much sense to say all came from nothing as it is to say all came from something that came from essentially nothing

Note that I used the term "suggesting" rather than something like "proving" or "confirming." I think that any reasonable person would conclude that the level of organization and complexity we see, particularly in terms of living things, would be very difficult to "achieve" through random chance. I have seen some say, "It's not just chance. There are the laws of physics."

Ok. So I would say it's very unlikely that what we see could have arisen through chance given the laws of physics.

Of course no matter how small a probability there is it can be realized and the chance that it can be realized increases as the number of "trials," or events that area associated with the tiny probability occur. So like even though the probability of winning the Powerball is only 1/195 million a number of people have won the powerball because so many tickets are purchased.

Still, I think that the odds of having something like we see in terms of life develop through chance and the laws of physics are many orders of magnitude longer than the odds of winning the Powerball. I am inclined to think that chance and the laws of physics do not account for it.

But it's true that no matter what you believe about this subject you reach a point that's hard to wrap your mind around. You either have to believe in something outside of the physical universe that is eternal (always existed, always will exist) or you have to believe something like a timeless, dimensionless point suddenly for some reason exploding into the unverise or an eternal oscillating universe. And my understanding is that the eternal oscillating universe concept isn't consistent with what's been observed with respect to the expansion of the universe.

Even using a term like "suddenly" with respect to the timeless, dimensionless point thing is weird because the idea is there was no time and "suddenly" implies time.

[kalm]

We have discovered some 200 planets; the better our instruments get, the more planets we find. This morning they're talking about a newly discovered system with at least 5 and maybe 7 planets.

Does this mean that Jesus is some sort of regional manager for this corner of the galaxy? I mean it's hard to picture other worlds taking him seriously when he doesn't even have the right number of tentacles.

[JohnStOnge]

If I were going to argue your side, I'd stick close entropy.

The idea that things tend to move from order to disorder in closed systems is not really at the forefront of my thought process. I'm simply looking at what exists and ask myself if I tend to believe it arose through chance and the "laws" of nature. And my honest answer to myself is "no."

[JohnStOnge]

The evidence doesn't point to me being the one with blinders on.

I shouldn't have said you have blinders on. I try to avoid personally insulting people or things that could be construed as personal insults. It was just a gut reaction at the time not really meant as an insult. It's just that I truely don't understand how anybody could look at the existence around them, contemplate the idea of having it arise through chance in the context of the laws of nature, and not be inclined towards thinking there is some kind of intelligence behind it.

[ASUG8]

I've always struggled some with religion vs. science, and I've concluded that for myself they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I grew up Presbyterian going to church nearly every Sunday, but I really stopped going once I had the choice. I think when I realized that when you can have 100 people within the same denomination that have 100 differing opinions on the meaning of a verse, the interpretation is really up to the individual.
I can certainly fit the biblical timeline within the larger evolutionary timeline. There is no question that we have hard, physical evidence of evolution and we must (if we choose) take religion on faith. That being said, do I believe all the stories in the Bible about giants and burning talking bushes? No. I do believe that there was a very influential man alive that inspired some of the great religions of the world and that he likely talked of being compassionate and giving and had an ability to greatly influence masses of people. I don't know if he worked miracles or not - it could be how stories, when told over and over tend to take on a life of their own. I know I try to live within the commandments and follow the golden rule as much as I can and that gives me some peace.

I do have a few questions/observations:
* I can't wrap my head around forever, whether it's forever in the past or future
* If God has always been around, what was he doing prior to setting the universe in motion?
* I can fit the seven days of creation into the biblical context - what's a day to God? A billion yrs? More?
* Would the discovery of alien life reinforce or refute the bible?
* I know I tend to look up when I'm on my back
* What happens when we die? I don't remember anything before I was 3 or 4 yrs old - is it like that or is Heaven real?
* I'd sure hate to think that because I was born to Protestant parents that Taoism was truly the correct path in the end I mean, is there one correct religion or is there enough common thread between them to allow believers to ascend to their respective eternities?

I'd love to sit down with someone sometime and discuss some of these things - seems that the older I get and the more I see people around me passing away the more I think about what's in store for me.

[JoltinJoe]

I've always struggled some with religion vs. science, and I've concluded that for myself they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I grew up Presbyterian going to church nearly every Sunday, but I really stopped going once I had the choice. I think when I realized that when you can have 100 people within the same denomination that have 100 differing opinions on the meaning of a verse, the interpretation is really up to the individual.
I can certainly fit the biblical timeline within the larger evolutionary timeline. There is no question that we have hard, physical evidence of evolution and we must (if we choose) take religion on faith. That being said, do I believe all the stories in the Bible about giants and burning talking bushes? No. I do believe that there was a very influential man alive that inspired some of the great religions of the world and that he likely talked of being compassionate and giving and had an ability to greatly influence masses of people. I don't know if he worked miracles or not - it could be how stories, when told over and over tend to take on a life of their own. I know I try to live within the commandments and follow the golden rule as much as I can and that gives me some peace.

I do have a few questions/observations:
* I can't wrap my head around forever, whether it's forever in the past or future
* If God has always been around, what was he doing prior to setting the universe in motion?
* I can fit the seven days of creation into the biblical context - what's a day to God? A billion yrs? More?
* Would the discovery of alien life reinforce or refute the bible?
* I know I tend to look up when I'm on my back
* What happens when we die? I don't remember anything before I was 3 or 4 yrs old - is it like that or is Heaven real?
* I'd sure hate to think that because I was born to Protestant parents that Taoism was truly the correct path in the end I mean, is there one correct religion or is there enough common thread between them to allow believers to ascend to their respective eternities?

I'd love to sit down with someone sometime and discuss some of these things - seems that the older I get and the more I see people around me passing away the more I think about what's in store for me.

Some great questions. With respect to time, the best concept I've ever heard is that our perception of time, in which one moment follows another, is a construct of our minds and the limitations of human perception. At the moment, there are various scientific undertakings which might prove to actually support this thesis. Interesting that science may be on the verge of providing at least some support for an idea that metaphysicians have been asserting for centuries.

I'll take the rest of the conversation off line with you.

[D1B]

I've always struggled some with religion vs. science, and I've concluded that for myself they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I grew up Presbyterian going to church nearly every Sunday, but I really stopped going once I had the choice. I think when I realized that when you can have 100 people within the same denomination that have 100 differing opinions on the meaning of a verse, the interpretation is really up to the individual.
I can certainly fit the biblical timeline within the larger evolutionary timeline. There is no question that we have hard, physical evidence of evolution and we must (if we choose) take religion on faith. That being said, do I believe all the stories in the Bible about giants and burning talking bushes? No. I do believe that there was a very influential man alive that inspired some of the great religions of the world and that he likely talked of being compassionate and giving and had an ability to greatly influence masses of people. I don't know if he worked miracles or not - it could be how stories, when told over and over tend to take on a life of their own. I know I try to live within the commandments and follow the golden rule as much as I can and that gives me some peace.

I do have a few questions/observations:
* I can't wrap my head around forever, whether it's forever in the past or future
* If God has always been around, what was he doing prior to setting the universe in motion?
* I can fit the seven days of creation into the biblical context - what's a day to God? A billion yrs? More?
* Would the discovery of alien life reinforce or refute the bible?
* I know I tend to look up when I'm on my back
* What happens when we die? I don't remember anything before I was 3 or 4 yrs old - is it like that or is Heaven real?
* I'd sure hate to think that because I was born to Protestant parents that Taoism was truly the correct path in the end I mean, is there one correct religion or is there enough common thread between them to allow believers to ascend to their respective eternities?

I'd love to sit down with someone sometime and discuss some of these things - seems that the older I get and the more I see people around me passing away the more I think about what's in store for me.

Good questions. Whatever you do, keep organized religion at a distance, especially christianity, islam and judaism. They profit from people like you and you don't need it. It great you're looking into Eastern Mysticism - taoism - there's much wisdom there and stuff like The Golden Rule was set forth by them centuries before the advent of christianity.

Keep in mind there are dozens of Jeususes throughout history and the christian model was one of the last. It stuck because tyrants and rulers saw the benefit of keeping the masses under control by promising them eternal salvation if they behave (and severely punishing them by torture or death if they did not).

[D1B]

I've always struggled some with religion vs. science, and I've concluded that for myself they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I grew up Presbyterian going to church nearly every Sunday, but I really stopped going once I had the choice. I think when I realized that when you can have 100 people within the same denomination that have 100 differing opinions on the meaning of a verse, the interpretation is really up to the individual.
I can certainly fit the biblical timeline within the larger evolutionary timeline. There is no question that we have hard, physical evidence of evolution and we must (if we choose) take religion on faith. That being said, do I believe all the stories in the Bible about giants and burning talking bushes? No. I do believe that there was a very influential man alive that inspired some of the great religions of the world and that he likely talked of being compassionate and giving and had an ability to greatly influence masses of people. I don't know if he worked miracles or not - it could be how stories, when told over and over tend to take on a life of their own. I know I try to live within the commandments and follow the golden rule as much as I can and that gives me some peace.

I do have a few questions/observations:
* I can't wrap my head around forever, whether it's forever in the past or future
* If God has always been around, what was he doing prior to setting the universe in motion?
* I can fit the seven days of creation into the biblical context - what's a day to God? A billion yrs? More?
* Would the discovery of alien life reinforce or refute the bible?
* I know I tend to look up when I'm on my back
* What happens when we die? I don't remember anything before I was 3 or 4 yrs old - is it like that or is Heaven real?
* I'd sure hate to think that because I was born to Protestant parents that Taoism was truly the correct path in the end I mean, is there one correct religion or is there enough common thread between them to allow believers to ascend to their respective eternities?

I'd love to sit down with someone sometime and discuss some of these things - seems that the older I get and the more I see people around me passing away the more I think about what's in store for me.

Some great questions. With respect to time, the best concept I've ever heard is that our perception of time, in which one moment follows another, is a construct of our minds and the limitations of human perception. At the moment, there are various scientific undertakings which might prove to actually support this thesis. Interesting that science may be on the verge of providing at least some support for an idea that metaphysicians have been asserting for centuries.

I'll take the rest of the conversation off line with you.

Looking forward to the scientist providing support for the idea of Noah's Ark , the resurrection of jesus, and god knocking up a virgin.

[SuperHornet]

Christians are quite correct to worry about and oppose the overbearing and unjustified influence of virulent anti-religionists in the mainstream academia, but "intelligent design" may not be the best place tactically to take a stand.

The sad part Native, is that if you were to propose that the Intelligent Designer was actually aliens that "seeded" the Earth, all of a sudden, it would be all okay by many that despise Christianity.

There are UFO cults out there that have asserted exactly that. They're the ones that typically use suicide as a means to get their "flock" onto a passing spaceship. That pretty much explains folk like Marshall Applewhite....

[houndawg]

If I were going to argue your side, I'd stick close entropy.

The idea that things tend to move from order to disorder in closed systems is not really at the forefront of my thought process. I'm simply looking at what exists and ask myself if I tend to believe it arose through chance and the "laws" of nature. And my honest answer to myself is "no."

If I were trying to defend your position, it would be.

The farther back we look in time, the more order there was. Coincidence? We'll let you decide.

[houndawg]

The sad part Native, is that if you were to propose that the Intelligent Designer was actually aliens that "seeded" the Earth, all of a sudden, it would be all okay by many that despise Christianity.

There are UFO cults out there that have asserted exactly that. They're the ones that typically use suicide as a means to get their "flock" onto a passing spaceship. That pretty much explains folk like Marshall Applewhite....

And Jim Jones.

[Cap'n Cat]

Christianity is dying right alongside the RepubliConk party.

[death dealer]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_ ... in_hawking

LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.

In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

[89Hen]

What the hell does he know. He's not even smart enough to find a cure for ALS.

[Cap'n Cat]

What the hell does he know. He's not even smart enough to find a cure for ALS.

God, right?