Intelligent Design

[Al_Moritz]

Here’s the thing, Al.

If creation is, analogically speaking, more like a musical piece that God plays than a watch produced and left to wind down, then every “improvisation” will appear as tinkering to those who think they have the original sheet music in front of them.

The assumption on the part of scientists is not that they actually have the original sheet music, but that by intently paying attention to the piece being played (aka scientific observation) scientists can glean various aspects and “draw up” the music. That perspective assumes the performance isn’t being improvised to begin with.

Perhaps, there is no possibility of creating an ultimately accurate set of notations because the performance need not follow some scripted sheet.

The problem is that science’s understanding of those causal relationships is tenuous at best and does not amount to a full and complete accounting of the ontology of things - the way things are - but rather a dubious and “surface” one from what has been observed to occur with some consistency - the reprised and not improvised parts. Science can only extrapolate from those reprised parts that it observes because of their consistency and then infers what “must” be about the rest. The “must” part, however, isn’t firmly established and could, in fact, be of a far deeper and more profound nature than the notations regarding consistency thus far indicate.

If nature is a glimpse into a more robust and spontaneous reality than any “laws” can depict then science itself would need to be overhauled in terms of its principle assumptions being invulnerable.

In other words, the laws of physics may be “child’s play” when compared to “life” and “life” need not follow inexorably from the laws of physics. Assuming that it does leads to the conclusion that God must have “tinkered” to create life. That may not be so. It may be that life is a completely different level of creation that requires a different creative (name removed by moderator)ut by its very nature - improvised by genius, so to speak.

Science may garner a sense of the bass, rhythm track or drum beats, but can have no access to what is “above” those.

Fine, Peter, you have philosophical objections against the science of abiogenesis or the way it is conducted. But then please stay silent about this science, when you don’t know enough about it. As it is, you make extraordinarily well informed comments about a number of other issues, in ways that keep amazing me, and perhaps that should remain the way to go.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

For the cause of the material universe, some people refer to Vishnu, other people refer to the Multiverse. One is supernatural, the other is not. Your assumption that creation (the word assumes your preferred answer) is supernaturally produced is merely a personal assumption, and carries very little weight.

rossum

The assumption that a Multiverse exist is, from the point of view of science, unfounded. One can imagine many things that cannot be proved to exist.

It is therefore the personal assumption of atheists who wish to God there was something other than God to explain the universe they abide in.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Science is doing its work. So far, ID appears to be twiddling its thumbs.

rossum

Yes indeed, science is doing its work very diligently, and is to be congratulated for proving that nothing can be proved without Intelligent Design of the experiment that proves it.

 

[tonyrey]

rossum;12551846:

Unlike science Design explains the existence of everything within our experience, notably the physical universe, persons, truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

Science can explain more than design. Science explains the non-existence of actual pegasi: hexapod mammal/avian mixes. Since pegasi are designed, by humans, then obviously pegasi can be designed. Since they can be designed, why do they not exist?

A theory which says, “everything is the way it is because that is the way it is” is utterly useless.

Indeed. That is what science amounts to! It doesn’t give any reasons for the way things are. It simply gives a description of their physical causes as if nothing else matters! Science by itself leaves us in a valueless, purposeless and meaningless universe - which is precisely why you are a Buddhist…

You overlooked the phrase “from scientific explanations”? In other words why do you confine explanations to physical reality?

I do not. However, arguing about the relative usefulness of the explanations found in the Bible and the Tripitaka is off topic in this thread and will likely not produce much of any use.

The topic is not science but Design to which the Bible and the Tripitaka are far more relevant since they are concerned with the purpose of life.

They give better predictions than the alternatives.

Is that the sole criterion of valid explanations?No. The Kalama sutta also asks, “Do they work?” The test for whether or not a scientific theory works is the accuracy of its predictions. Einstein’s mathematics gave better predictions than Newton’s mathematics, so Einstein’s theory is preferred.

Pragmatism is a notoriously inadequate test of truth. The fact that things work - like a clock - doesn’t explain why they exist. It is the least important aspect of their existence.

Will science ever predict all human decisions? If not why not?

I doubt it. To many (name removed by moderator)ut variables, not all of which are measurable.

It is not only a question of many variables but also of the inadequacy of science as far as the value and purpose of life is concerned.

What about Buddhism? Is that scientific?

Part is. Meditation has scientifically measurable effects. The rest is mostly not amenable to scientific testing. The appropriate quote is, “bring me an angel detector.”

In other words science tells us nothing about what really matters as far as the mind and soul are concerned.

 

[buffalo]

Which is precisely why the M-U experiment has been repeated many times with many different variants of the atmospheric mix and many different energy (name removed by moderator)uts: sunlight, lightning, meteorite strikes, volcanoes, underwater black smokers and others. Science has experiments to show the limits on the range of conditions that will allow the production of amino acids.

Where are the equivalent experiments showing the range of conditions under which the proposed designer can, and cannot, work? Does the designer require air, or can he/she/it/they work underwater? Where are the experiments to support your answer?

Science is doing its work. So far, ID appears to be twiddling its thumbs.

rossum

And science has shown just how difficult protein folds are. The odds are so well over the chance threshold it is ridiculous. But if you want to cling to your faith the god of BUC, go for it.

 

[buffalo]

The assumption that a Multiverse exist is, from the point of view of science, unfounded. One can imagine many things that cannot be proved to exist.

It is therefore the personal assumption of atheists who wish to God there was something other than God to explain the universe they abide in.

The multiverse is an escape clause. Why? To escape the obvious design (fine tuning) of the universe.

However, if the multiverse is true, there can be a fake universe as well as one with God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The multiverse is an escape clause. Why? To escape the obvious design (fine tuning) of the universe.

:

And isn’t it interesting that the idea of multiverse never even occurred to anyone until Hawking decided that an escape hatch from theism was needed? A convenient dodge.

 

[edwest2]

Intelligent Design is consistent with what we actually observe. We can’t observe life from a million years ago in action, along with the rest of its environment. Let’s look at the broader context: sources of food, water, predators, places to live, build nests or burrows. Adequate defenses like teeth, claws and the ability to get away by flying or living with your young in tall trees or other places where predators would find them hard to reach.

Then we have symbiotic relationships like bees and flowers. These interrelationships can’t be guessed. The only real usefulness of Biology today is to study things that are currently alive, like microbes, animals, and people. Evolutionary science contributes nothing to this.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Peter_Plato]

Fine, Peter, you have philosophical objections against the science of abiogenesis or the way it is conducted. But then please stay silent about this science, when you don’t know enough about it. As it is, you make extraordinarily well informed comments about a number of other issues, in ways that keep amazing me, and perhaps that should remain the way to go.

Right back at you, big guy! :tiphat:

 

[buffalo]

And isn’t it interesting that the idea of multiverse never even occurred to anyone until Hawking decided that an escape hatch from theism was needed? A convenient dodge.

It is keeping some funding alive.

 

[buffalo]

And isn’t it interesting that the idea of multiverse never even occurred to anyone until Hawking decided that an escape hatch from theism was needed? A convenient dodge.

c

http://www.ffafintl.org/uploads/2/2/6/2/22627346/7514801_orig.jpg

 

[rossum]

The assumption that a Multiverse exist is, from the point of view of science, unfounded. One can imagine many things that cannot be proved to exist.

Corect. The multiverse is a hypothesis, just as God is a hypothesis. Currently they both have about the same level of scientific evidence to support them, as do Vishnu, Allah and many others.

It is therefore the personal assumption of atheists who wish to God there was something other than God to explain the universe they abide in.

There can be no external explanation for the philosophical All-That-Exists universe. Both God and the multiverse are included in the ATE universe. The ATE universe, by definition, has no existing external cause.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Yes indeed, science is doing its work very diligently, and is to be congratulated for proving that nothing can be proved without Intelligent Design of the experiment that proves it.

Your use of the word “proved” shows that you do not understand the way science works. All science does is to disprove hypotheses. The last hypothesis standing gets to be a theory. That theory is never “proved”, but is retained until a better theory comes along.

Experiments provide the evidence science uses to choose between the various hypotheses proposed.

The ID hypothesis, so far, is greatly lacking in supporting evidence.

rossum

 

[rossum]

In other words science tells us nothing about what really matters as far as the mind and soul are concerned.

Science can tell us something, but not everything, about the mind. For example, there are drugs that help control schizophrenia. I am Buddhist, so I do not accept the existence of a soul.

Science deliberately limits itself to the material, because answers are relatively easy to find when dealing with the material world.

Answers are less easy to find when dealing with the supernatural: God or Allah? Soul or no soul? Those questions are unlikely to be resolved. A great deal of interesting discussion, but resolution is unlikely any time soon.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The odds are so well over the chance threshold it is ridiculous.

Please show your calculation of those odds. Did the calculation include the effect of natural selection? Did the calculation allow for multiple generations? Did the calculation include the number of partially active foldings?

Absent those three important elements, then the calculation is not relevant to any discussion of evolution.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Indeed. That is what science amounts to! It doesn’t give any reasons

So you agree that science by itself leaves us in a valueless, purposeless and meaningless universe, the Bible and the Tripitaka are far more relevant since they are concerned with the purpose of life, the way things work is the least important aspect of their existence and science tells us nothing about what really matters as far as the mind is concerned. Your moral and spiritual decisions are far more precious and significant than physical survival…

 

[rossum]

So you agree that science by itself leaves us in a valueless, purposeless and meaningless universe, the Bible and the Tripitaka are far more relevant since they are concerned with the purpose of life, the way things work is the least important aspect of their existence and science tells us nothing about what really matters as far as the mind is concerned. Your moral and spiritual decisions are far more precious and significant than physical survival…

None of which is relevant to biology, evolution or ID, all of which are strictly within the domain of science.

I would also point out that a number of the things you talk about, like “purpose” are, in Buddhist terms, reifications. Just projections of our own internal ideas onto the external world.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Experiments provide the evidence science uses to choose between the various hypotheses proposed.

The ID hypothesis, so far, is greatly lacking in supporting evidence.

rossum

On the contrary. The evidence for ID is that the first living organism would have appeared to have been designed (even Dawkins admits this). There is no evidence that it would have appeared not to have been designed.

 

[DrTaffy]

On the contrary. The evidence for ID is that the first living organism would have appeared to have been designed (even Dawkins admits this). There is no evidence that it would have appeared not to have been designed.

But ‘designed’ by a mindless iterative process, not by an intelligent sentient entity.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But ‘designed’ by a mindless iterative process, not by an intelligent sentient entity.

Begging the question of whether genetic code is merely iterative in any “mindless” sense or whether design is identical to iteration.