Why are WE here?

[wanstronian]

Scientific evidence by its very nature cannot lead to your metaphysical conclusion - which presupposes that physical reality is the sole reality. Science doesn’t explain itself…

Oh, the old “science can’t explain itself” chestnut. It really is a pathetic argument. Science doesn’t have to explain itself. It works - consistently, independently, verifiably.

It is blind and irrational to assume that your faith in blind and irrational processes - which you don’t practise in the way you live - is superior to faith in the primacy of reason…

That is, of course, your opinion. But it’s only that. You have no supporting evidence. You’re just speculating, and calling it fact. You’re not thinking rationally. I believe, from our various encounters, that you’re unable to think rationally about this, because you’ve never shown any sign of doing so. Your argument is the argument from ignorance, and you can’t - or won’t - even acknowledge that plain fact. So really, what’s the point? If you’re not even honest with yourself, you’re hardly likely to be honest in your discussions, are you?

 

[wanstronian]

They are more akin to intelligent oversight than chaos and chance events.

Not in the slightest. The laws of nature bound the realm of the possible. That doesn’t in any way suggest that they are the product of conscious design. The idea is entirely lacking in any evidence whatsoever. You’re just inserting a baseless premise to support your non-existent argument.

Why?

Because here we are - generally orderly and constructive beings, with a clear and robust scientific theory that explains how we came to be such. You can continue to deny it if you wish, but I very much doubt that you really disbelieve it, unless you have taken a conscious decision not to try to understand it, and prefer to seek sources that confirm your preferred conclusion.

The success of science points directly to the power of intelligence and nowhere near blind chance. Which do you rely on when you’re having a discussion or solving your day to day problems?

Well, you’re in danger of equivocating here. Science wouldn’t exist if its practitioners were unintelligent. But no scientific theory in the world even remotely suggests an intelligent overseer of our universe, nor an intelligent creator of it. I rely on my intelligence when I’m having a discussion or solving problems. The existence of human intelligence is not suggestive of an intelligent creator.

“stuff” is the key word. The most important “things” in life are unknown to science - which tells us nothing about persons, truth, goodness, freedom, justice, purpose or love. You cannot and do not base your entire life on " the strict methodological protocols of proper science" and its discoveries. You may pretend it will explain everything but it won’t not explain you or anyone else!

I do not for one second claim that science can currently explain everything. However, it can explain much, and the limits are expanding daily. The old “science can’t explain love” argument is just bunkum, it really is. The only method of reliably and consistently explaining anything is… science. Compare and contrast to religious belief, which explains precisely nothing.

It’s very disingenuous of you to imply that because science can’t explain something, there are alternative methods of explanation. There simply aren’t. To take one of your examples - explain “truth.” Explain it objectively and repeatably. Note that describing it is not the same thing as explaining it.

 

[tonyrey]

Science doesn’t have

 

[wanstronian]

Are you willing to explain what religion has to do with your supersition? I fail to see a connect:blush:

God Bless,
Pat

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m not superstitious. Religion has nothing to do with my comments. Religious myths about the purpose of humans are completely without foundation. The best information we have suggests that the existence of life is a product of chance. Such a PoV is neither religion nor superstition (the former being, of course, a subcategory of the latter).

 

[wanstronian]

REALLY, so my friend you have a more informed reason for the Universe?

No - there is no cause to suspect a “reason” for the universe. To assume that the universe exists for a “reason” (ie. an intelligent decision) is the first mistake on the road to religious delusion.

The sun and moon alternating?

What are you talking about? In what way do the sun and moon “alternate?”

The fact that humanity ALONE can reason and love due to SPIRITUAL gifts of a mind, intelect, and freewill?

This isn’t even wrong (just so you know, you shouldn’t take that as a compliment). You don’t know that “humanity alone” can reason and love. Firstly, even on our own planet there is plenty of evidence that non-human animals also have this capability. Their inability to vocalise it is a poor reason to suggest they’re not capable of it. Secondly, you’re discounting the presence of life on other planets. So your question is fundamentally incoherent - based on false assumptions. It’s like me asking how come cats can fly.

Incidentally, free will is an illusion. Like it or not, that’s what the evidence suggests.

So it’s just luck? Coincedience?

Ultimately - yup.

 

[wanstronian]

So does your mind - hopefully consistently, and certainly independently, verifiably…

Er… yes. You think that somehow proves your point???

That diatribe can be directed at you with equal facility and does nothing whatsoever to further the argument - which is not at all unusual in that you are often more concerned with an argument ad hominem than the issue at stake…

I hardly think you’re squeaky clean when it comes to ad hominems, mate.

You can level the same accusations at me, of course. The difference is that I have science on my side, whereas you have only guesswork and a wish for your belief to be true.

It is an indubitable fact that you don’t rely on blind and irrational processes to make your decisions for you…

Nor have I ever suggested otherwise. But, as has been pointed out to you many times - if only you’d man up enough actually think about it - this has no demonstrated dependency on an intelligent creator.

 

[jmcrae]

Does humaity have a precise reason for existence?

The second chapter of Genesis tells us that we are here to “tend the garden” (take care of the rest of the Creation) and to help one another.

 

[tonyrey]

Not in the slightest. The laws of nature bound the realm of the possible.

Of course it is - because love is a myth, isn’t it?

The only method of reliably and consistently explaining anything

is… science. You’re dead right! anything…

Compare and contrast to religious belief, which explains precisely nothing.

Define religion. You seem to have one but how did you ever come to worship to science to such an extent that you concluded it is the sole possible explanation of every aspect of reality? Or did you just fall into the trap by accident? Do you really believe science can explain in principle every single aspect of your personality? If so you must be a biological robot!

It’s very disingenuous of you to imply that because science can’t explain something, there are alternative methods of explanation. There simply aren’t.

It’s plain idiotic to imagine there are no other methods of explanation besides science. I bet you don’t make all decisions scientifically!

To take one of your examples - explain “truth.” Explain it objectively and repeatably. Note that describing

it is not the same thing as explaining it.Note carefully that this is not a scientific explanation:

Truth is the correspondence of a belief or proposition to some aspect of reality which can be recognised only by a rational mind - such as yours(!). Is that objective enough? How many times do want me to repeat it to prove its repeatability?

[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

The difference is that I have science on my side, whereas you have only guesswork and a wish for your belief to be true.

 

[buffalo]

I think I know where you’re going with this, and higher-profile ID creationists than yourself have been slapped down. I suspect you just like repeating the same old arguments anyway, even though they’ve been refuted, because they still sound good to you.

But to play along until it all gets too ridiculous - generally yes, it’s detectable. I’m not sure how you could say that “design exists” without being able to detect it.

So go ahead… is your next question going to be, “How do we detect design?”

I will switch it up - is it worth studying or should science abandon this search for knowledge?

 

[buffalo]

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m not superstitious. Religion has nothing to do with my comments. Religious myths about the purpose of humans are completely without foundation. The best information we have suggests that the existence of life is a product of chance. Such a PoV is neither religion nor superstition (the former being, of course, a subcategory of the latter).

Will you furnish this chance calculation? Does it exceed the UPB?

 

[PJM]

=wanstronian;8466930]Not in the slightest. The laws of nature bound the realm of the possible. That doesn’t in any way suggest that they are the product of conscious design. The idea is entirely lacking in any evidence whatsoever. You’re just inserting a baseless premise to support your non-existent argument.

Because here we are - generally orderly and constructive beings, with a clear and robust scientific theory that explains how we came to be such. You can continue to deny it if you wish, but I very much doubt that you really disbelieve it, unless you have taken a conscious decision not to try to understand it, and prefer to seek sources that confirm your preferred conclusion.

Well, you’re in danger of equivocating here. Science wouldn’t exist if its practitioners were unintelligent. But no scientific theory in the world even remotely suggests an intelligent overseer of our universe, nor an intelligent creator of it. I rely on my intelligence when I’m having a discussion or solving problems. The existence of human intelligence is not suggestive of an intelligent creator.

I do not for one second claim that science can currently explain everything. However, it can explain much, and the limits are expanding daily. The old “science can’t explain love” argument is just bunkum, it really is. The only method of reliably and consistently explaining anything is… science. Compare and contrast to religious belief, which explains precisely nothing.

It’s very disingenuous of you to imply that because science can’t explain something, there are alternative methods of explanation. There simply aren’t. To take one of your examples - explain “truth.” Explain it objectively and repeatably. Note that describing it is not the same thing as explaining it.

Using your science; quantify for us your freewill…

What’s it color. shape, size, weight? Then do the same for your intellect anfd mind [not brain]…

Everyone one has these; right? So where do they come from and what is there purpose?

We can’t inhetit them from our natural parents who are physical; as these things are Spiritual. Does not science teach that “like MUST come from like?”

God Bless,
Pat

 

[wanstronian]

I will switch it up - is it worth studying or should science abandon this search for knowledge?

Well, science isn’t even pursuing this search for knowledge, because ID isn’t a search for knowledge, it’s creationism masquerading as science. Nowhere is this more profoundly illustrated than in the Discovery Institute’s own Wedge document, which makes it abundantly clear that ID is an attempt to get creationism into schools. Furthermore, this has been openly admitted:
Phillip E. Johnson:

Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.

So for ID Creationists to continue to make the claim that ID is science is, frankly, laughable.

Science always strives for knowledge, but ID isn’t a valid way of achieving such a goal, as it was clearly devised with a predetermined and baseless conclusion (“God did it”), and for dishonest purposes (indoctrinate the population with religion).

So given that ID is not a scientific subject, science simply hasn’t been involved in it; so there’s nothing for science to abandon.

As for whether it’s worth studying outside the realms of scientific methodology, I guess that’s up to the individual. It’s no less useful than studying the origins of unicorns, I suppose. Whatever floats your boat!

 

[wanstronian]

Will you furnish this chance calculation? Does it exceed the UPB?

You mean, can I quantify it? No, of course not, and it would be meaningless anyway.

What’s UPB?

 

[wanstronian]

Using your science; quantify for us your freewill…

What’s it color. shape, size, weight? Then do the same for your intellect anfd mind [not brain]…

Everyone one has these; right? So where do they come from and what is there purpose?

We can’t inhetit them from our natural parents who are physical; as these things are Spiritual. Does not science teach that “like MUST come from like?”

God Bless,
Pat

Well, you’re just resorting to the theist’s common fallacy-argument here - the argument from ignorance.

And science doesn’t teach anything of the sort. What with this and the “sun and moon alternating” thing (still waiting for you to explain that, btw), you’re exposing your ignorance

 

[buffalo]

You mean, can I quantify it? No, of course not, and it would be meaningless anyway.

What’s UPB?

Universal Probability Bound . The fact you are not familiar with it means you really do not understand ID.

 

[buffalo]

Well, science isn’t even pursuing this search for knowledge, because ID isn’t a search for knowledge, it’s creationism masquerading as science. Nowhere is this more profoundly illustrated than in the Discovery Institute’s own Wedge document, which makes it abundantly clear that ID is an attempt to get creationism into schools. Furthermore, this has been openly admitted:

So for ID Creationists to continue to make the claim that ID is science is, frankly, laughable.

Science always strives for knowledge, but ID isn’t a valid way of achieving such a goal, as it was clearly devised with a predetermined and baseless conclusion (“God did it”), and for dishonest purposes (indoctrinate the population with religion).

So given that ID is not a scientific subject, science simply hasn’t been involved in it; so there’s nothing for science to abandon.

As for whether it’s worth studying outside the realms of scientific methodology, I guess that’s up to the individual. It’s no less useful than studying the origins of unicorns, I suppose. Whatever floats your boat!

Design detection certainly is a science.

Evo’s have their own - the anti-wedge document. So?

Definition of Intelligent Design

                                      What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. 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. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

                  See [New World Encyclopedia](http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design) entry on intelligent design.
           
                                                **Is intelligent design the same as creationism?**

                                      No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an  effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature  acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product  of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected  process such as natural selection acting on random variations.  Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how  the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design  starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what  inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the  scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern  biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through  science is supernatural.                     
                 Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge  the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of  Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of  intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees  the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent  design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to  conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers,  it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit  intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design  is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who  wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the  merits of its case. 					
                     	        
           
                                                **Is intelligent design a scientific theory?**

                                      Yes. The scientific method is commonly described  as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments,  and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that  intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).   Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it  will contain high levels of CSI.  Scientists then perform experimental  tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and  specified information.  One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible  complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally  reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of  their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity  in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

 

[Lui]

Does humaity have a precise reason for existence?

That’s a question no one can answer. In other words, no one knows. To say we evolved from a single-cell organism over billions of years to humans explains HOW we got here by science. Every religion has it’s own theory how we got here. Philosophy and religion also have their theories WHY we are here but no one really knows.
I would say this question can’t be answered but directly. We can just make assumptions or explain theories based on beliefs.

 

[wanstronian]

Universal Probability Bound . The fact you are not familiar with it means you really do not understand ID.

Quite probably - I see no point in wasting my time learning the finer distinctions of an agenda-driven creationist rhetoric when it has no scientific basis. Googling “Universal Probability Bound” quickly (Googling “UPB” results in no hits for Universal Probability Bound, and it doesn’t even appear in thefreedictionary.com’s acronym list - what does that tell you about its validity?), it appears to have been invented by Dembski purely for the purpose of pretending that certain events couldn’t be accidental. There’s no scientific basis for presuming that a derived number like this represents a universal constant.

So Dembski invents a number which he claims is a threshold, then points to events and says, “Look, they can’t be chance, so God must have done it!”

As I said before - no science involved.

 

[buffalo]

Quite probably - I see no point in wasting my time learning the finer distinctions of an agenda-driven creationist rhetoric when it has no scientific basis. Googling “Universal Probability Bound” quickly (Googling “UPB” results in no hits for Universal Probability Bound, and it doesn’t even appear in thefreedictionary.com’s acronym list - what does that tell you about its validity?), it appears to have been invented by Dembski purely for the purpose of pretending that certain events couldn’t be accidental. There’s no scientific basis for presuming that a derived number like this represents a universal constant.

So Dembski invents a number which he claims is a threshold, then points to events and says, “Look, they can’t be chance, so God must have done it!”

As I said before - no science involved.

Try googling the complete phrase.

Do you believe there exists a value threshold that moves an event from chance to design?