Intelligent Design

[Peter_Plato]

My point was that the idea of such a thing as a creator with a set design or watching over a process isn’t necessary.

All the best,
Gary

How would "isn’t necessary” be known for certain unless you had a full accounting of the totality of reality to know what was necessary, not just to have physical reality (the universe) exist, but to have it exist as a stand-alone reality?

We have some sense of what physical reality is, but we have no idea whether physical reality itself can possibly be stand-alone or dependent upon something “more” to sustain it. Science assumes physical reality is stand alone as part of its methodology, but that is all. Science cannot conclude that physical reality is fully ens a se, ens ex se or ens ab alio (see Blackwell) without a great deal of question begging, denial or presumption. The methodology of science, to function, has to assume ens a se, but it has by no means demonstrated that.

Naturalism has profited from that assumption because science can assume ens a se and the internal integrity of the universe has been shown to sustain that assumption, but internal integrity, itself, does not prove ens a se.

Big Bang cosmology points to a coming into existence at some finite past time. That argues strongly against ens a se.

Another overlooked aspect is that it is human intelligence that has allowed the methodology of science to be implemented, but the existence of intelligence is nowhere explained by that methodology nor by physical reality. Hence, my rabbit from a hat analogy.

 

[edwest2]

All science theories are at base established by consensus among scientists, informed by the evidence.

False. You are being lied to by creationist sources. You are being lied to over and over again. Why do you believe sources that repeatedly lie to you?

Creationism has no real evidence. That is why it has to resort to lies and fabrications.

You asked me to justify the 20,000 years figure I used upthread. I did. I asked you to provide the odds calculation you referred to. You didn’t. Which side do you think has the better evidence?

Evolution has been observed. Repeatedly. Think of bacteria evolving immunity to antibiotics.

Evolution has been repeated, many times. See the Luria–Delbrück experiment for one example.

Evolution is, to some extent, predictable. Multi-drug HIV therapies are the result of one such prediction.

You are being lied to, and lied to massively. The creationist side has no evidence so it has to rely on lies and distortions.

Do you think that lies are stronger than truth, or truth stronger than lies?

Why do you think that evolution has such strong support among biologists of all religions, and none. Ken Miller is Catholic, and he wrote one of the best selling evolution textbooks.

You are being mislead by liars. Better to follow Ken Miller.

rossum

I’m not a follower of any man. Ken Miller is not a credible example. He wants things both ways as a Catholic. A simple review of Catholic teaching will show you can’t be both.

It doesn’t matter to me any longer how often people are called names. I can read their work and thanks to others, including yourself, come to my own conclusions. If all that’s necessary here is “just say yes to evolution and we’ll quit bringing it up,” count me out. I’m not a Creationist, IDist or whatever. I only believe what the Church teaches about this subject while following the often convoluted and speculative attempts at explaining something that cannot be readily demonstrated.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Of course not. However, science works on evidence. ID has put forward a hypothesis. Normally the next stage in science is to develop predictions from that hypothesis. Then the predictions are tested by experiments.

So far, ID has not made any testable predictions. For example, does ID predict that the flu virus will continue to evolve, requiring a new vaccine every year or so, or will the designer set a limit to how far the flu virus can evolve?

That can be tested. If, as some ID people say, mutations lose information, then every mutated flu virus will have less information than its predecessor. At some point it will reach the minimum information, below which it can no longer infect people.

Discussion is not silenced. This is the age of the internet, and there are online ID journals, which publish ID papers. So far those papers appear to be unimpressive, but that might change. A lot of the ID papers are not actually supporting ID with evidence, they are more critiques of evolution. You cannot build a new theory by merely critiquing the old. You actually need to have predictions, and experiments to show that those predictions were correct.

Behe’s IC is an interesting case in point. Behe, correctly, made a prediction: “IC systems cannot evolve”. A prediction can be tested. Behe’s prediction was tested, and the testing led to some good and interesting science. His prediction as a whole failed, IC can evolve but only by indirect routes. That is not a problem; most predictions do fail. Behe reacted correctly, and modified his hypothesis and prediction: “IC systems are unlikely to evolve”. Again he tested that prediction to determine the limits of “unlikely”. 20,000 years was the answer in Behe and Snoke (2004).

That is not a criticism of Behe, he was doing good science, and he acted correctly. He has enhanced the theory of evolution by making it clear that IC systems cannot evolve by direct routes. That part of his prediction was confirmed by the experiments. The overall theory is now more accurate thanks to Behe’s criticism.

rossum

Evolutionary science has no value whatsoever in Biology. Only living things that are alive today are being studied.

Ed

 

[Peter_Plato]

It doesn’t matter to me any longer how often people are called names. I can read their work and thanks to others, including yourself, come to my own conclusions. If all that’s necessary here is “just say yes to evolution and we’ll quit bringing it up,” count me out. I’m not a Creationist, IDist or whatever. I only believe what the Church teaches about this subject while following the often convoluted and speculative attempts at explaining something that cannot be readily demonstrated.

Ed

I find myself in pretty much this same position - if it can be called that.

Foxes have holes. The birds of the air have nests. But…

 

[edwest2]

I find myself in pretty much this same position - if it can be called that.

Foxes have holes. The birds of the air have nests. But…

Building a nest correctly is relatively complex. Spiders build geometric webs… uh, yeah, they just sort of stumbled into the idea… or something.

Or took a ‘how to build a web’ class.

Ed

“Or something” appears to be one line of ‘reasoning’ I encounter. “This must be connected to that.” The word “maybe” is implied.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

But that is not reproducible nor can it be demonstrated. I have read books that were very well written but the conclusions boiled down to speculation as opposed to a collection of facts leading to a reasonable conclusion.

Best,
Ed

Good Evening Ed West: I made reference to Wheeler’s Delayed Choice Experiment and the fractal nature of the world we live in. Wheeler’s Delayed Choice Experiment has been reproduced many times. The fractal nature of the world around us is reproduced in everything you look at or experience. You can observe it every day for yourself without any guidance. And while you may have read lots of books that offer speculation, and with regard to the meaning of these things, I have not offered a conclusion. On those occasions when I do offer ideas on the meaning of anything, I most always state that it is simply an idea or an opinion. In truth, no one knows a lot about why world works the way it does. No one even knows what the world is. As I have said many times, the world could be anything.

All the best,
Gary

 

[edwest2]

Good Evening Ed West: I made reference to Wheeler’s Delayed Choice Experiment and the fractal nature of the world we live in. Wheeler’s Delayed Choice Experiment has been reproduced many times. The fractal nature of the world around us is reproduced in everything you look at or experience. You can observe it every day for yourself without any guidance. And while you may have read lots of books that offer speculation, and with regard to the meaning of these things, I have not offered a conclusion. On those occasions when I do offer ideas on the meaning of anything, I most always state that it is simply an idea or an opinion. In truth, no one knows a lot about why world works the way it does. No one even knows what the world is. As I have said many times, the world could be anything.

All the best,
Gary

Hello Gary,

I’ve been exposed to a lot of worldviews over the years. I’ve read about so many. The idea that the world could be anything ignores a lot of established facts. Opinions don’t matter to me. Either something is true or not. Take gravity. I’ve been told that how it works has not been figured out but I know exactly how much force I need to apply to throw a basketball to enter a small hoop at a given distance.

I think the people at NASA know a great deal, for example. We got from the earth to the moon in 1969 with an onboard computer that was about as powerful as a modern pocket calculator. Not much has changed since then as far as space travel.

Best,
Ed

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Evolutionary science has no value whatsoever in Biology. Only living things that are alive today are being studied.

Ed

Do you believe that the Pope is wrong for endorsing evolutionary science then?

 

[edwest2]

Do you believe that the Pope is wrong for endorsing evolutionary science then?

Which Pope? What did he say? Respectfully, why is a religious leader’s endorsement of anything scientific important?

Best,
Ed

 

[tonyrey]

You carefully edited out the bit where I explicitly pointed out the standard we met. So added back in for all to see.

You demanded that we show where we have seen mindless things produce intelligent beings, which we did. Yet you consistently refuse to either admit that it was a silly, hypocritical standard or to meet it yourself by showing where you have seen intelligent beings created ex nihilo by an immaterial omnipotent being.

Precisely when and where have you seen mindless things produce intelligent beings?

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Forget the Pope then, (but it’s the one who said evolution is real)(and aliens deserve respect as well) are you serious in saying that biology has no use for evolutionary science. The problem with your idea, is that Biology is a big sphere. Clearly genetics is covered by biology, and geneticist clearly study lineages and in fact use evolution, to create new and better food species for instance, be it say corn or the cattle and hogs that eat corn or other modified crops. If you say that biology has no use for evolution, you clearly do not know what biology or evolution are.

 

[tonyrey]

All science theories are at base established by consensus among scientists, informed by the evidence.

False. You are being lied to by creationist sources. You are being lied to over and over again. Why do you believe sources that repeatedly lie to you?

Creationism has no real evidence. That is why it has to resort to lies and fabrications.

You asked me to justify the 20,000 years figure I used upthread. I did. I asked you to provide the odds calculation you referred to. You didn’t. Which side do you think has the better evidence?

Evolution has been observed. Repeatedly. Think of bacteria evolving immunity to antibiotics.

Evolution has been repeated, many times. See the Luria–Delbrück experiment for one example.

Evolution is, to some extent, predictable. Multi-drug HIV therapies are the result of one such prediction.

You are being lied to, and lied to massively. The creationist side has no evidence so it has to rely on lies and distortions.

Do you think that lies are stronger than truth, or truth stronger than lies?

Why do you think that evolution has such strong support among biologists of all religions, and none. Ken Miller is Catholic, and he wrote one of the best selling evolution textbooks.

You are being mislead by liars. Better to follow Ken Miller.

rossum

It baffles me how you and other intelligent contributors to this forum fail to distinguish Design from Creationism. Do you really believe Plato and Aristotle were Creationists? :tsktsk:

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

It baffles me how you and other intelligent contributors to this forum fail to distinguish Design from Creationism. Do you really believe Plato and Aristotle were Creationists? :tsktsk:

Not trying to be negative, but who cares what people who lived when there were no planets, and the elements were Earth, Air, Fire and Water believed. Just too much has changed since then, they belong in history class, not in a real discussion of the future direction of life.

 

[PRmerger]

Forget the Pope then, (but it’s the one who said evolution is real)(and aliens deserve respect as well)

Could you give the quote from this pope who said that aliens deserve respect as well?

 

[tonyrey]

We were talking about extinction Tony. Not the end of life itself.

The two are inextricably linked, Brad. Isn’t extinction on such a massive scale bound to lead inexorably to the end of all life? Yet time and again life has proved itself to be capable of overcoming all the threats to survival. Would you resort to Chance once again to explain that? If so the accumulation of so many coincidences in your hypothesis is becoming incredible. At what stage would do you decide that such confidence in the Blind Goddess is no longer reasonable? Or is it an established fact that is unquestionable, come what may?

Life is pretty bulletproof. Been reasonably successful. But the design of the component parts has not been what you might describe as a roaring success. Unless, of course, that God has determined that constituent parts should fail.

“reasonably” is a gross understatement considering that 3.5 billion years is an incredible achievement when that life has been under the constant onslaught of threats which result in 2.7 and 270 species being erased from existence every single day. You don’t have to be a mathematical genius to realise that some explanation is required. If that is not a success what it is?

Is that part of the Design? That it should not succeed?

It has succeeded by the very fact that it has survived and produced individuals like you and I and billions of others who have enjoyed, are enjoying and will enjoy the incomparable privilege of benefiting from this “abysmal failure”. It is rather unrealistic to imagine that everything in the garden should be rosy in such a hostile universe. The element of Chance plays a very large part in our lives but that is a far cry from the notion that it is the supreme factor. Nihilism never achieved anything. No one lives as if reasoning is a waste of time. A certain amount of positive thinking is required if we are not going to contradict ourselves. “By their fruits you shall know them”… In other words we ultimately get what we deserve - at the psychological level.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Could you give the quote from this pope who said that aliens deserve respect as well?

How about you do a Google search, like I did, then you could have, 858,000 results, in .4 seconds.

google.com/#q=pope+on+aliens

However since you want a quote, here goes-----> Pope Francis has stated that he would welcome alien life forms into the open arms of the Catholic Church, should they be willing to convert. He put forward his official stance on Martians - among other intergalactic travelers - at a homily on Monday.

Francis proclaimed that the Catholic Church was one of “open doors” and it was the independent choice of each Christian to accept the Holy Spirit into their lives.

“If tomorrow an expedition of aliens from Mars arrives…and one of the green ones with long nose and big ears, like those which children draw, comes and says, ‘I want a Baptism!’ What would happen?” Francis asked rhetorically.

The Pontiff then pointed out that St. Peter himself had assuaged doubts of his critics by stating that: “If then God gave them the same gift he gave to us for believing in the Lord Jesus, who was I to hinder God?”

According to the Bible, Peter had been criticized by Christians in Jerusalem for contacting ‘unclean’ Pagans. Francis used the passage to illustrate that at the time, it had also been considered ‘unthinkable.’

“When the Lord shows us the way, who are we to say, ‘No, Lord, it is not prudent! No, let’s do it this way.’ Who are we to close doors?” Francis added.

He made the comments at a Monday morning mass at the Casa Santa Maria residence at the Vatican, according to Vatican Radio.

While the statements may seem a little far-fetched, it is not the only time the Vatican has discussed the baptism of alien life forms.

At the British Science Festival in 2010, one astronomer for former Pope Benedict XVI, Guy Consolmagno, stated that he would be prepared to baptize an alien if it asked. “Any entity – no matter how many tentacles it has – has a soul,” Consolmagno stated.

Next

 

[tonyrey]

Not trying to be negative, but who cares what people who lived when there were no planets, and the elements were Earth, Air, Fire and Water believed. Just too much has changed since then, they belong in history class, not in a real discussion of the future direction of life.

That is hardly a Christian attitude if one believes all living beings are created by God. Moreover the ideas and principles of Plato and Aristotle are an important part of our intellectual, moral, political, social, aesthetic and spiritual heritage. Time is irrelevant where truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are concerned.

 

[PRmerger]

How about you do a Google search, like I did, then you could have, 858,000 results, in .4 seconds.

Well, since you are new to the CAFs I’ll cut you some slack.

But it is considered bad form to make a claim here, and then when asked to back it up say, “Look it up yourself.”

The proper thing to do when asked to provide a source, when one has made a claim, is to…

provide a source.

However since you want a quote,

Yes, indeed. That seems to be a pretty valid request, no?

 

[tonyrey]

That is one of the things I like about Buddhism. It makes a very clear distinction between internal realities and external realities. When we see a mirage, we see water. Inside our minds, that water is real. Externally, the water is not real.

It is important to clearly understand what things are mere constructs inside our heads, and what things exist externally as well. Mistaking one for the other results in suffering.

I have great respect for Buddhism but it seems to take spiritual reality for granted…

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

That is hardly a Christian attitude if one believes all living beings are created by God. Moreover the ideas and principles of Plato and Aristotle are an important part of our intellectual, moral, political, social, aesthetic and spiritual heritage. Time is irrelevant where truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are concerned.

Here is where you are only looking to the past, and forget that evolution also happens in the future. Follow this, there will be a permanent base on Mars, if even one form of life is found or genetically engineered to live in the Martian environment, then the human who releases it there, fulfills the God equation, as the organism will multiply, and begin adapting by evolution to the Martian environment. Seriously, to those who believe in biblical teachings, which clearly say that man was created in the image of God, should believe that your image is controlled by your DNA, and if man has God’s DNA, then man has all of God’s capability. The Pope already knows this, and has commented on it in his own way…The thing is, the Martians are us, once we go there.