Vatican rejects Intelligent Design.

[atszyman]

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.
His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".

His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

link (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html)

[leekohler]

link (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html)

The Catholic Church on the correct side of an issue? Somebody better shut this guy up before their reputation's ruined! :)

[tristan]

From his lips to God's ears. :-)

[mactastic]

Holy crap. I'm stunned. If that's real and lasting, it's gonna hurt the ID movement here.

[Thanatoast]

Holy crap. I'm stunned. If that's real and lasting, it's gonna hurt the ID movement here.
How come? Everyone knows Catholics aren't real Christians anyway. That's why we left their church hundreds of years ago. ;)

[solvs]

Well, not exactly "rejects". More like... "appends". Thank you fundamentalists for forcing the Church to distance itself from you.

Anybody else see American Dad last night? It was drawing parallels between fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians. Even if the show sucks sometimes, they made some good points. Perhaps some of the more progressive members of the Vatican want to make the distinction clear so what is happening in America right now doesn't continue.

[tristan]

Yeah, I love American Dad, especially since I used to live in "Langley Falls", aka McLean, VA.

There's something going on right now which is making many people worldwide more fundamentalist. I think it's related to globalization and the pace of technological change, but I don't completely understand it. I have to say that the lower your IQ, the stronger the effects seem to be.

[Chacala_Nayarit]

DRUNK MEXICAN SPOTS VIRGIN MOTHER IN BOWEL MOVEMENT

FREEHOLD IA-- After relieving himself of Tuesday night's Chalupa surprise dinner, José Hernandez was shocked when he found the Mother of Jesus staring up at him out of the toilet bowl. Four hours later, after transporting his stool to a local Catholic church, thousands of Mary worshippers were lined up to scratch and sniff the Virgin Mother. Later that week it was found that the display violated several sanitation ordinances, thereby allowing the Godly members of Landover Baptist church to act on the Lord's behalf. Health inspectors issued 14 citations against the Roman Church. In addition, they carted away a partially decomposed shrunken saint's head, and a small glass vial marked "Seed of Jesus."

That's inteligunt desine stool! :D

[pseudobrit]

The Catholic Church has for quite some time endorsed the theory of evolution.

[Thomas Veil]

Indeed. The Church can be quite maddening -- dogmatic on some issues, open-minded on others -- but evolution has been accepted by the Church for a while.

(The other Catholic concept I love is the very narrow definition of a "just" war. Needless to say, the current Iraq conflict doesn't come anywhere near to meeting that definition.)

[stoid]

How come? Everyone knows Catholics aren't real Christians anyway. That's why we left their church hundreds of years ago. ;)

Yeah, it feels like Catholicism is actually more of a hobby than a real religion.

[xsedrinam]

I think the thread title is in reference to Sunday Night Bingo.

[Macmaniac]

Brilliant, I am happy to see the church is supporting evolution. At least some good sense is still out there. Now to get Creationists in the US to listen!

[rickvanr]

This ought to knock down the super nutty christians down a peg or two.

I'm a fan of progress. Without moving with the times (earth not being the center of the universe, evolution, etc..) the church would become obsolete and just a bunch of crazy fanatics.

[solvs]

There's something going on right now which is making many people worldwide more fundamentalist.
It's probably the approaching Apocalypse.

but evolution has been accepted by the Church for a while.
News to me.

Needless to say, the current Iraq conflict doesn't come anywhere near to meeting that definition.
I had heard the previous Pope was against the war. But Bush is against gays and abortion and progress, so Catholics voted for him. Even if Kerry was a Catholic.

Yeah, I don't get it either.

This ought to knock down the super nutty christians down a peg or two.
You'd think. But no.

[takao]

actually it's old news.. just last year such statements were already made by the former head of conregation of faith which has stepped up a rank since then ;)

[jelloshotsrule]

(The other Catholic concept I love is the very narrow definition of a "just" war. Needless to say, the current Iraq conflict doesn't come anywhere near to meeting that definition.)

and yet when i brought that up with my mom's catholic nut friends last year before the election... they tried to claim the pope hadn't condemned the war.... uggh

[solvs]

and yet when i brought that up with my mom's catholic nut friends last year before the election... they tried to claim the pope hadn't condemned the war.... uggh
Everyone knows the Pope loves killing people.

That would have been funnier with the last Pope. I'm not so sure about the current one. They should have gone with the Nigerian guy. I wonder how many Catholics would have been cool with that.

[plinden]

and yet when i brought that up with my mom's catholic nut friends last year before the election... they tried to claim the pope hadn't condemned the war.... uggh
Easy to refute their claim.
Bring up google.
Type in: pope war Iraq
View results.

[jelloshotsrule]

Easy to refute.
Bring up google.
Type in: pope war Iraq
View results.

from the first result:

The most consistent and frequent promoter of peace and human rights for the last two decades has been Pope John Paul II.

From Iraqi War I to Iraqi War II, he has echoed the voice of Paul VI, crying out before the United Nations in 1965: War No More, War Never Again!

John Paul II stated before the 2003 war that this war would be a defeat for humanity which could not be morally or legally justified.

http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html


i'm not sure if you were saying he was for or against......

[plinden]

i'm not sure if you were saying he was for or
against......
Sorry, just re-edited my post for clarity.

[jelloshotsrule]

Sorry, just re-edited my post for clarity.

haha. i almost threw in a "you showed me! :rolleyes: "

glad i asked for clarity. :)

[GorillaPaws]

Hey guys, this is my first post in the Political Forum, and I hate to be THAT guy, but what's so wrong w/ the intelligent design argument (I'm not saying it should be taught as science in public school or anyting)? I'm a philosophy major and of all Thomas Aquinas' arguments for the existence of a Divine being, I thought his intelligent design argument was the best. For those who haven't read it, the super quick modified (for simplicity/brevity)version goes like this:
-A caveman(or any person ignorant of technology) walks in woods and stubles on a watch.
-Even though he's never seen one before, and has no understanding of how it works, the complex interworkings of the device leads the caveman to believe that this is not a random phenomena, but had to have been crafted by something w/ intelligence.
-The world/universe is lke a watch because it is very intricate (too intricate to be random) and therefore, even though we may not fully understand who created it, or how it works, we can infer that something with an intelligence must have created it.

Now I'm not a religious dude or anything, but I do think this argument has some merrit to it. Especially since it seems to be able to coincide w/ evolutionary theory e.g. what if that intelligent design of the universe only consisted of the laws of physics and nature, and the rest just evolved from there? Something like this seems to satisfy both the scientists claims and yet provides some justification for believing in some sort of divine power, No?

[zimv20]

what's so wrong w/ the intelligent design argument (I'm not saying it should be taught as science in public school or anyting)?
you're hit upon the correct point: where should it be taught? the current debate and lawsuits are about teaching it in science class in public schools.

personally, i think ID is crap. it's not even a real theory, just conjecture to fit a preconceived notion. i wouldn't object so much to having it taught in, say, a philosophy class. but let's not pretend it's something it's not.

[skunk]

-The world/universe is lke a watch because it is very intricate (too intricate to be random) and therefore, even though we may not fully understand who created it, or how it works, we can infer that something with an intelligence must have created it.Unfortunately for that argument, the world is not like a watch at all, not that watches had been invented in Aquinas' time. This is philosophical speculation, not empirical science.
No?No.

[zimv20]

yeah, the whole ID thing comes down to a weird kind of empiricism -- because we can't conceive of something in one way, it must necessarily be this other way.

never mind that the two methods in no way form a complete, much less opposite, set. and since when have the laws of physics and chemistry become mutable w/ regard to human understanding?

[plinden]

Hey guys, this is my first post in the Political Forum, and I hate to be THAT guy, but what's so wrong w/ the intelligent design argument (I'm not saying it should be taught as science in public school or anyting)? I'm a philosophy major and of all Thomas Aquinas' arguments for the existence of a Divine being, I thought his intelligent design argument was the best.

It's been a long time since I studied this or even thought about it, but the teleological argument (as you've described here) has been effectively refuted by smarter guys than I am, although some people still insist on debating it.

I've mainly forgotten the arguments against it, but the main problem with it is that this is a circular argument that assumes a priori that the universe is "complex" and something as "complex" as the universe could not have come into existence without divine interference. What's more, people who put forward this argument are not inclined to delve into the physics of the universe to try to determine whether it really is as complex as it seems.

Physics still hasn't managed to produce a theory of origin where the set of physical constants conducive to the evolution of life falls naturally out the equations of the universe, but it slowly and surely working towards such a theory. They may not ever find such a theory, but this is much better than blind unquestioning faith.

[GorillaPaws]

Well it was initially an argument for the existence of God (not a theory) made famous by Thomas Aquinas back in the day (it was #3 of 5 I think). Phlilosophy would be good for kids these days- it trains you to think critically about problems/ rationally break down arguments- especially when testing the validity of such arguments. I guess my question is where do you see fault in Aquinas' argument? I'm a quasi-believer in it myself, but don't by any means think it should be a substitute for the Sciences.

Edit: It was actually his 5th argument. Sorry, I type kinda slowly. And it's been a while since I've studied this too.

[solvs]

I guess my question is where do you see fault in Aquinas' argument?
It's not so much his argument we have a problem with. Teaching evolution as a theory and adding the possibility of ID is fine. I don't think anyone is arguing against that. The problem is that the people backing ID have perverted it into science = bad, Judeo-Christian God = bad. It's not that they want to you to accept that there might be a god. It's that they want you to believe in God, and only God, and anything else is evil. I'm sure I'm speaking mostly of the extremists who think that by not teaching God we are rejecting god (which is false), but I haven't seen many who support ID in school making the coherent arguement you have.

See, lack of religion does not mean religion is not allowed, it just means it's not forced.

[GorillaPaws]

Well, I found a site about his argument (among other things, he's a ways down the page) here:http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/3n.htm#fivw

The fifth way is the Teleological Argument: the order and arrangement of the natural world (not merely its existence) bespeaks the deliberate design of an intelligent creator. Although it is an argument by analogy which can at best offer only probable reason for believing the truth of its conclusion, this proof offers a concept of god that most fully corresponds to the traditional elements of medieval Christian theology. Since its empirical basis lies in our understanding of the operation of nature, this line of reasoning tends to become more compelling the more thorough our scientific knowledge is advanced.

[plinden]

I guess my question is where do you see fault in Aquinas' argument?

Well, first of all, what aspect of the world/universe does the argument refer to?

If the physical world, its origin is easily described by classical Newtonian physics, where gravitation attraction within an interstellar gas cloud causes gas to fall into areas of higher density, forming a disk of material around the densest part. The densest part eventually reaches a high enough density that it spontaneously starts fusion. The accretion disk collapses further to form both rocky and gaseous bodies known as planets. If a planet is in the right region not too far from the sun and not too close, is big enough but not too big, and has enough but not too much water, it will eventually be wet enough to support life. With a time period of 14Billion years, and 100,000,000 (Edit: oops, that should be 100,000,000,000) stars in a typical galaxy, and 100,000,000 galaxies in the universe (at a conservative estimate) the chances are pretty high at least one planet will be like the earth, and it's likely to be much much higher. There's no divine intervention required here is there?

So what about the formation of life? Of course, science doesn't yet have the answers, but there are compelling hints that self-propagating organic molecules can form spontaneously. A planet like earth that's been cool and wet enough to support life for 3.5Billion years is a huge organic chemistry lab, and it only takes one molecule like that to kickstart life. Comparing the world to a watch isn't really suitable, since there's nothing inherent in the nonorganic components of a watch that leads it to form spontaneously.

[zap2]

Good!

[GorillaPaws]

See, lack of religion does not mean religion is not allowed, it just means it's not forced.

I couldn't agree more with you. The thought of forcing religion in school ticks me off to no end. Don't think I'm one of those dudes. I just find it interesting that there is such a huge backlash against ID (since it's been hijacked by a group of people-- many of whom have probably never even heard of Aquinas or have read his arguments). The focus has been drawn away from an interesting argument for Gods existance to some sort of goofy crucade to "save the kids" from a Godless education. Like I said earlier, I'm more interested in the actual merits/problems w/ the argument. Many of you have brought up good points.

[plinden]

Unfortunately for this argument, the following sentence refutes itself:
Although it is an argument by analogy which can at best offer only probable reason for believing the truth of its conclusion, this proof offers a concept of god ...
An argument by analogy is not a proof, and it says itself that it can offer at best only a probable reason for believing it. Perhaps if it had "proof" in quotes, it wouldn't be quite so bad.

Since its empirical basis lies in our understanding of the operation of nature, this line of reasoning tends to become more compelling the more thorough our scientific knowledge is advanced.
I can only assume this was written by someone with limited knowledge of current scientific thought. There is absolutely no reason to believe that "this line of reasoning" has become more compelling as science learns more about the universe.

[GorillaPaws]

Well, first of all, what aspect of the world/universe does the argument refer to?

If the physical world, its origin is easily described by classical Newtonian physics, where gravitation attraction within an interstellar gas cloud causes gas to fall into areas of higher density, forming a disk of material around the densest part. The densest part eventually reaches a high enough density that it spontaneously starts fusion. The accretion disk collapses further to form both rocky and gaseous bodies known as planets. If a planet is in the right region not too far from the sun and not too close, is big enough but not too big, and has enough but not too much water, it will eventually be wet enough to support life. With a time period of 14Billion years, and 100,000,000 stars in a typical galaxy, and 100,000,000 galaxies in the universe (at a conservative estimate) the chances are pretty high at least one planet will be like the earth, and it's likely to be much much higher. There's no divine intervention required here is there?

So what about the formation of life? Of course, science doesn't yet have the answers, but there are compelling hints that self-propagating organic molecules can form spontaneously. A planet like earth that's been cool and wet enough to support life for 3.5Billion years is a huge organic chemistry lab, and it only takes one molecule like that to kickstart life. Comparing the world to a watch isn't really suitable, since there's nothing inherent in the nonorganic components of a watch that leads it to form spontaneously.

Ok... but all of your stated Physical phenomena are governed by a set of very complex rules. I.e. Gravity, relativity, thermodynamics, the properties of light, mass, etc. These physical rules are complex in and of themselves. It seems like these rules in and of themselves lend themselves to likely being designed by a supreme mathmatician? I mean Unless you're suggesting that the physical laws themselves evolved out of simpler ones, you have to presuppose a vast set of pre-existing and complex mathmatical archetecture.

[zimv20]

It seems like these rules in and of themselves lend themselves to likely being designed by a supreme mathmatician?
not to me, it doesn't.

why must the universe be designed? that's what the ID argument always comes back to, and that's where i disagree.

it seems to me that those who feel the universe must be designed are those who believe their life has a purpose other than what they make of it.

[GorillaPaws]

I'm not trying to say that the big bang never happend, or that we didn't evolve from fish, just that these theories may be able to coincide. And you're right this isn't a proof in the difinitive law establishing way, but that if it's premises hold then it provides good evidence for a belief in some sort of a God (as there could still be some as yet undiscovered explanation for all of these scientific phenomena).

And I think the source is pretty good, it isn't advocating his position, merely outlining his place in the history of midevil philosphy, giving a summary of his arguments. Go see for yourself.

[Don't panic]

Hey guys, this is my first post in the Political Forum, and I hate to be THAT guy, but what's so wrong w/ the intelligent design argument (I'm not saying it should be taught as science in public school or anyting)?
no issue if you want to teach it in philosphy/history/religion/mithology classes, especially in an historical/comparative perspective. but it's not even a theory. It is completely unsupported by any (ANY) evidence and therefore it doesn't belong into a science class.

I'm a philosophy major and of all Thomas Aquinas' arguments for the existence of a Divine being, I thought his intelligent design argument was the best. For those who haven't read it, the super quick modified (for simplicity/brevity)version goes like this:
-A caveman(or any person ignorant of technology) walks in woods and stubles on a watch.
-Even though he's never seen one before, and has no understanding of how it works, the complex interworkings of the device leads the caveman to believe that this is not a random phenomena, but had to have been crafted by something w/ intelligence.
-The world/universe is lke a watch because it is very intricate (too intricate to be random) and therefore, even though we may not fully understand who created it, or how it works, we can infer that something with an intelligence must have created it.
the major limit of the argument (and the reason your watch analogy doesn't work) is assuming that it's "too intricate to be random". As far as the complexity of living organism on this planet, it is not, and there is absolutely no need to "infer" creation, because the contemporary "intricacies" can be explained very convincingly by our current scientific knowledge, and evolution in particular. It's a "proof" born out of ignorance. It may have worked 1250, but we have come a long way.

what if that intelligent design of the universe only consisted of the laws of physics and nature, and the rest just evolved from there? Something like this seems to satisfy both the scientists claims and yet provides some justification for believing in some sort of divine power, No? how the laws of physics and nature came to be is an open and difficult question, but the scenario you suggest is not what creationist propose, nor one most of them would likely accept (and it's more similar to the catholic's church positions).

[iBlue]

ever have an argument with someone and when you finally prove your point - they act like that's what they meant and that they knew it all along? ;)

[plinden]

Ok... but all of your stated Physical phenomena are governed by a set of very complex rules. I.e. Gravity, relativity, thermodynamics, the properties of light, mass, etc. These physical rules are complex in and of themselves. It seems like these rules in and of themselves lend themselves to likely being designed by a supreme mathmatician? I mean Unless you're suggesting that the physical laws themselves evolved out of simpler ones, you have to presuppose a vast set of pre-existing and complex mathmatical archetecture.

Many of the "laws" of physics are simple enough to be represented with an equation: F = GMm/d^2, E = mc^2, E = hf , m = Mv/sqrt(c^2 - v^2) etc

I guess I have to mention the anthropic principle, which maintains that the reason life can exist at all is because the physical constants of the universe are suitable for life to exist. (Many physicists don't like this because they want the universal constants to be an inevitable result of the ultimate theory of the universe.)

At least one of the physical constants is so finely tuned that a 1 in a million (I am not a physicist so may be wrong in that value) difference in its value would mean life could not exist. However, this still does not mean that the universe is designed for life, only that the conditions are suitable for life. One theory is that there "have been" (that phrase implies time, but time doesn't exist outside the universe) many big bangs, with many different resulting "mathematical architectures" as you call it, and life is an inevitable result of the conditions present in this universe.

[GorillaPaws]

not to me, it doesn't.

(1)why must the universe be designed? that's what the ID argument always comes back to, and that's where i disagree.

(2)it seems to me that those who feel the universe must be designed are those who believe their life has a purpose other than what they make of it.

1. I guess Aquinas would say, that the Universe is too complicated (i.e. all of those laws of Physics that I mentioned are too perfect to have just occured by random). Where did the law of gravity come from- I mean Newton discovered it, Einstein refined it, but the actual phenomena that we know as gravity- the thing that keeps the universe in balance, where did that come from? As far as we know these laws don't change and thus cannot evolve, so they have existed since the beginning. So why must it be designed (well it doesen't necessarily have to be), but it seems like there is a good possiblilty that there must have been something intelligent that put it together.

2. I know what you're getting at, and while you're probably right. You can accept Aquinas' argument and still reject a "greater purpose." I.e. you don't necessairly have to adopt that life view as a result of accepting the Teleological argument.

[Don't panic]

Teaching evolution as a theory and adding the possibility of ID is fine. I don't think anyone is arguing against that.
actually, if you want to add that possibility within a science class it is NOT fine and I for one would argue against that.
creationism/ID has NO scientific merit and should NOT be taught alongside scientific theories, unless some evidence can be shown it its support.

[GorillaPaws]

Many of the "laws" of physics are simple enough to be represented with an equation: F = GMm/d^2, E = mc^2, E = hf , m = Mv/sqrt(c^2 - v^2) etc

I guess I have to mention the anthropic principle, which maintains that the reason life can exist at all is because the physical constants of the universe are suitable for life to exist. (Many physicists don't like this because they want the universal constants to be an inevitable result of the ultimate theory of the universe.)

At least one of the physical constants is so finely tuned that a 1 in a million (I am not a physicist so may be wrong in that value) difference in its value would mean life could not exist. However, this still does not mean that the universe is designed for life, only that the conditions are suitable for life. One theory is that there "have been" (that phrase implies time, but time doesn't exist outside the universe) many big bangs, with many different resulting "mathematical architectures" as you call it, and life is an inevitable result of the conditions present in this universe.

So it seems like you at least accept the possibility of ID and physics coinciding? Something we both agree wouldn't necessitate your belief in a higher power?

[plinden]

So it seems like you at least accept the possibility of ID and physics coinciding? Something we both agree wouldn't necessitate your belief in a higher power?
No. Either the universe is designed by a greater intelligence, or it wasn't. There is no room for both possibilities. Since there is no need to invoke a divine power to get where we are today, then I will come firmly down on the side that we are here as the result of a series of natural, random, events.

[Don't panic]

At least one of the physical constants is so finely tuned that a 1 in a million (I am not a physicist so may be wrong in that value) difference in its value would mean life could not exist.
Just change it to "life as we currently know it" and the entire argument makes much more sense.
or there could well be/have been infinite universes with infinite combinations of "laws". only an infinitesimal fraction of them (still an infinite number) led to some form of "life". one of them is our "life".

[GorillaPaws]

No. Either the universe is designed by a greater intelligence, or it wasn't. There is no room for both possibilities. Since there is no need to invoke a divine power to get where we are today, then I will come firmly down on the side that we are here as the result of a series of natural, random, events.

I agree w/ your first point. But your second point states that there is no need to invoke a divine power to get where we are today. And yet you previously stated that the origins of our physical laws are still in question. Apply Occam's Razor: there is something intelligent that created these (seemingly intelligent laws), or they came from some unexplicable source as yet undiscovered, or they evolved from simpler laws (of which we have 0 evidence). The intelligent creator seems to be the simplist explanation. This makes it seem like my argument is at least plausible, especially since I've seen no evidence that demonstrates a conflict between the exitence of an Intelligent Designer and the evolution of the physical universe.

On a side note... I'm not trying to troll, If you guys want me to shut up, I gladly will, but I'm enjoying this discussion as I hope you are too.

[atszyman]

1. I guess Aquinas would say, that the Universe is too complicated (i.e. all of those laws of Physics that I mentioned are too perfect to have just occured by random). Where did the law of gravity come from- I mean Newton discovered it, Einstein refined it, but the actual phenomena that we know as gravity- the thing that keeps the universe in balance, where did that come from? As far as we know these laws don't change and thus cannot evolve, so they have existed since the beginning. So why must it be designed (well it doesen't necessarily have to be), but it seems like there is a good possiblilty that there must have been something intelligent that put it together.

2. I know what you're getting at, and while you're probably right. You can accept Aquinas' argument and still reject a "greater purpose." I.e. you don't necessairly have to adopt that life view as a result of accepting the Teleological argument.

My question is, if the universe is so complex that it must have been designed. Would that not necessitate the designer to be so complex that he/she/it must have been designed.... and so on... where does it end, and why can't it end with our universe existing as is in a cycle of expansion/compression?

[GorillaPaws]

actually, if you want to add that possibility within a science class it is NOT fine and I for one would argue against that.
creationism/ID has NO scientific merit and should NOT be taught alongside scientific theories, unless some evidence can be shown it its support.

I agree w/ you on this. This kind of debate may have a place in the classroom, but not in science class. There are more important things to be learning about in there. Like how all of the dinosaurs are really just God's way of testing our faith (I'm TOTALLY JOKING).

[GorillaPaws]

My question is, if the universe is so complex that it must have been designed. Would that not necessitate the designer to be so complex that he/she/it must have been designed.... and so on... where does it end, and why can't it end with our universe existing as is in a cycle of expansion/compression?

Now that's a REALLY good point. I guess the cheap way out is to say we don't know anything about this Intelligent Deisner (except that we may infer the probablility of it's existence because it is the simplist explanation of the orgin of our Universe's physical phenomena).

Edit: Anyways, I hope you guys aren't interpereting this discussion as me attempting to convert anyone's beliefs, I guess I'd just like people to realize that (at least the argument behind) ID isn't necessarily anti-science. I know that it's been wrapped into some crazy political stuff lately by people who want to construct it in that way and use it as a weapon to miseducate kids. I strongly oppose that. I'm all about people having their own beliefs in God, Allah, Buddah, Zeus, Thor, Atheism whatever, doing thier thing, as long as they don't hurt anyone it's all good. I guess I just saw ID getting ragged on like it was a total joke, and I wanted to bring up some interesting points in its defense.

[zimv20]

The intelligent creator seems to be the simplist explanation.
a misapplication of occam's razor, if i've ever seen one. an intelligent force behind the universe is not a simple explanation, it's merely convenient.

[SiliconAddict]

link (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html)

You are either with us or against us....

[SiliconAddict]

a misapplication of occam's razor, if i've ever seen one. an intelligent force behind the universe is not a simple explanation, it's merely convenient.

I've never understood how creation of the universe with its vast complexity could be more easily explained through natural forces. What would be the simpler example in that a floor at work was cleaned?

1. That the roof leaked. The rain soaked through wetting the floor. Residue from the last time the floor was cleaned created bubbles. a slope in the floor caused the water to drain. the cooling failed in the building causing water to dry.


2. The janitorial staff did their job and no was around when they did it.


Kinda seems cut and dry. But that's just me pondering it for a few seconds.

[xsedrinam]

...2. The janitorial staff did their job and no was around when they did it.
Noah wasn't around 'til the flood, and afterwards. :)

[.Andy]

I've never understood how creation of the universe with its vast complexity could be more easily explained through natural forces. What would be the simpler example in that a floor at work was cleaned?

1. That the roof leaked. The rain soaked through wetting the floor. Residue from the last time the floor was cleaned created bubbles. a slope in the floor caused the water to drain. the cooling failed in the building causing water to dry.


2. The janitorial staff did their job and no was around when they did it.

Kinda seems cut and dry. But that's just me pondering it for a few seconds.

Nice example to elaborate on :). You've chosen two physical, observable, experimentally tested principles there.

Firstly you can observe it raining through the roof or experimentally wet the floor through the roof to simulate rain. You can easily disprove that rain cleaned the floor through these avenues.

Secondly, as you rightly said it is much more simple (occam's razor) for a cleaner to do it. You can observe the cleaner or experimentally you could don the cleaning gear and try it out for yourself to see if it's possible.

Now for the sake of the analogy to ID'onism and the universe that you're trying to make, you'd need to add in a non-observable and non-testable and non-physical hypothesis to this. Like ghosts did it. It's possible that ghosts did clean the floor but you can never test experimentally that they did. You'd have to just go your faith in ghosts.

[leekohler]

Nice example to elaborate on :). You've chosen two physical, observable, experimentally tested principles there.

Firstly you can observe it raining through the roof or experimentally wet the floor through the roof to simulate rain. You can easily disprove that rain cleaned the floor through these avenues.

Secondly, as you rightly said it is much more simple (occam's razor) for a cleaner to do it. You can observe the cleaner or experimentally you could don the cleaning gear and try it out for yourself to see if it's possible.

Now for the sake of the analogy to ID'onism and the universe that you're trying to make, you'd need to add in a non-observable and non-testable and non-physical hypothesis to this. Like ghosts did it. It's possible that ghosts did clean the floor but you can never test experimentally that they did. You'd have to just go your faith in ghosts.

Very good! I like that.

[GorillaPaws]

Nice example to elaborate on :). You've chosen two physical, observable, experimentally tested principles there.

Firstly you can observe it raining through the roof or experimentally wet the floor through the roof to simulate rain. You can easily disprove that rain cleaned the floor through these avenues.

Secondly, as you rightly said it is much more simple (occam's razor) for a cleaner to do it. You can observe the cleaner or experimentally you could don the cleaning gear and try it out for yourself to see if it's possible.

Now for the sake of the analogy to ID'onism and the universe that you're trying to make, you'd need to add in a non-observable and non-testable and non-physical hypothesis to this. Like ghosts did it. It's possible that ghosts did clean the floor but you can never test experimentally that they did. You'd have to just go your faith in ghosts.

Yeah... But with ID our choices were between ghosts doing it and no real explantion at all. If someone can tell me a viable (non-cyclical) origin for the physical laws that govern our universe and demonstrate how there is an inherent contradiction between the existence of an Intelligent Designer (we're not talking about a strict Bible/Qur'ran/Talmud/Bagvaghita diety, but merely an intelligent originator), and the evolution of of our physical universe according to current science and I'd gladly acknowlege that ID is crap. But so far I think we have to accept the possibility that an ID (as I've been arguing it, not the kooky pseudo-philiosophical stuff) and modern science can co-exist.

edit: grammar

[SiliconAddict]

Nice example to elaborate on :). You've chosen two physical, observable, experimentally tested principles there.



My example isn't about ID but occam's razor. IMHO it just seems like a natural creation \ evolution of everything from what causes subatomic particles to act they way they do to galaxies seems more complex then someone actually designing it.
As for the example itself. *shrugs* Yah. Both are potentially observable events.

[SiliconAddict]

Noah wasn't around 'til the flood, and afterwards. :)


I'm hoping Noah didn't have to clean up THAT mess! Holy crap. That would have to be one heck of a mop! :eek: :D

[GorillaPaws]

Some other thoughts, it is my understanding that in particle physics there are often situations where there are no means of observing the phenomena and that thought experiments are the only legimate means for testing hypothesis/theories. I could be totally wrong here (I admittedly have a weak physics background), but studying quarks is one such example. Simply because we cannot observe, touch, or do physical experiments with these objects does not mean that we cannot know anything about them.

This is a common practice in philosophy as well. Take metaphysics for example, there is still great debate about what a concept is. Now we can't measure, see, or even test the idea of "concept", but that doesn't preclude us from believing that they exist. Take numbers for example, they exist, but not physically, I mean you don't see 5's floating around the air. Well how can something exist non-physically? It's easy because lots of things exist non-physically, yet you wouldn't call your belief that numbers really exist "taking it on faith would you?"

I guess my whole thing comes down to this:

1. If there is no inherent contradiction between an Intelligent Designer and the existence of our Universe, then we must assume that it is at least a possibility. Everything is possible until proven impossible (i.e. inconsistent with reality).

2. Why should we choose to believe in the existence of a non-physical Intelligent Designer? Because it is the best explanation for the existence of the Physical laws governing our Universe (this would include evolution).

You dont' really have to agree w/ #2. That's more of a "faith" issue, but some support for that assertion is comparing it to the other alternatives:

a. A infinitly cyclical Universe - this begs the question aren't there still laws governing this cyclical behavior? Where did these originate? Not to mention that you have to rationalize the concept of infinity.

b. The physical Laws of the Universe evolved from one simple original law, of which we have no evidence: not to mention the fact that you still have to explain the origin of that one law.

c. Some yet undiscovered scientific explantion (a.k.a. I'm not sure but I know it's not an Intelligent Designer!). And I know I made it sound kind of silly here, but this is a very legitimate position to hold.

or d. some sort of Intelligent Designer is responsible who may be an existing non-physical entity (but I don't think you have to limit the Intelligent Designer to that - I may be wrong). This isn't without it's problems too. Like an earlier poster mentioned to accept this solution you have to answer the "where did the Intelligent Designer come from?" to which there are not very good answers. But given the alternatives, I think that d. is the simplest choice.

That's why I accept ID as at least a somewhat legitimate justification of my beliefs in an Intelligent Designer. It's not a proof as has been pointed out, but it's certainly more than just "taking it on faith". It's a rational choice among many incomplete solutions to the incredibly difficult quetion of "where did all of this (meaning the Universe) come from?" This is phillosophy, not science. I hope that I've at least shown that it's at least possible to have your cake (Science) and eat it too (the Intelligent Designer). You can still just have your cake though if that's what your into :D . Anyways, I think I'm done here unless some of you would like to point out some interesting things I may have overlooked (I and sure I have).

[atszyman]

Let us once again apply Occam's Razor.

If you believe in a designer of the universe because you believe that the universe had to have a definite beginning then that designer had to have a definite beginning as well so who designed the designer, and who designed the designer's designer....

If the designer can be ever-present and infinite in existence (in other words was always there will always be there). Could not the universe itself be ever-present and infinite in existence following physical laws that have always been and will always be?

Now given the choice which is easier? The vastly complex universe that was created by an outside being who has always existed and will always exist. OR The laws of the universe have always been and will always be as the universe itself has and will.

By my logic Occam's Razor would select the second since it does not require the existence of another unexplainable being/phenomena.

[.Andy]

If someone can tell me a viable (non-cyclical) origin for the physical laws that govern our universe and demonstrate how there is an inherent contradiction between the existence of an Intelligent Designer (we're not talking about a strict Bible/Qur'ran/Talmud/Bagvaghita diety, but merely an intelligent originator), and the evolution of of our physical universe according to current science and I'd gladly acknowlege that ID is crap.

I think I read this right Gorillapawz. What you're asking is quite plainly the impossible. There will never be scientific evidence to disprove the existence of a designer, because it is a non-observable, non-testable entity. This is well outside the realm of science and something that science itself does not or could not aim to do. As the existance of a designer is a non-observable and non-testable hypothesis it firmly places it as a philosophy, which is totally distinct from science. It is impossible for philosophical viewpoints to be rejected in the face scientific evidence (and you do yourself a discredit by claiming you would do so), just as philosophy will never null-and-void empirical scientific evidence.

But so far I think we have to accept the possibility that an ID (as I've been arguing it, not the kooky pseudo-philosophical stuff) and modern science can co-exist.
edit: grammar
They sure can coexist (:)) but unfortunately that's not the problem with scientists. The problem is that ID is being peddled as a science, and as such severely discredits the scientific process. It is quite plainly a philosophy no matter how you argue it. The whole premise of ID's scientific credentials is based on the non-sequitur that because evolutionary theory doesn't explain X, ID must be correct. If ID wants to be taken seriously as a science it needs to amass observable, testable, replicatable evidence of a designer. In the absence of evidence ID as a science is totally bunk.

Remember just because the existence a designer is a philosophy doesn't make it any less important than science. It doesn't mean it's any less likely to be correct. In fact debate in both the philosophical and scientific fields are vitally important for the advancement of society.

[.Andy]

Double post.

[GorillaPaws]

Ok... Those were some good objections.

.Andy- I've stated previously (I think a couple of times), that I whole-heartedly disagree w/ people trying to use ID as science. I absolutely don't want people thinking I'm advocating that-- I'm not (I'm with you on this one). I'm simply trying to demonstrate that the philosophical argument behind ID can provide philosophical support for the belief in an Intelligent Designer (not a proof), but more support than just the faith of "I believe" (i.e. that the argument isn't total philosophical doo doo).

Also, you can disprove the existence of a non-observable, non-testable entity: A sphere with corners cannot exist. As for the science not being able to disprove philosophy and vice-versa, this actually happens all the time. I can't think of any examples off my head, but oftentimes physicists and metaphysists will help each other out. I know for a fact that philosophy is constantly evolving based on new breakthroughs in physics these often prove metaphysical theories false. Also, I think some of the metaphysical work on possibility has helped the evolution of physics like that famous laser being split experiment (I don't remember the name and I could be very wrong here). But all of this isn't really the point here. Oh and thanks for agreeing w/ me about the two co-existing, some people refused to believe that possiblility earlier.

Atszyman- Your point is a good one. However your argument has some problems. First of all, just because the Universe must have a begining (although I think what I was alluding to was that the laws of the Universe must have an origin, laws that in turn allowed for the begining of the universe, and even the cyclical destruction/rebirth of that Universe- if that's really what's going on) does not necessarily mean that the one who creates it must also have a begining.

Your second point that if a Intelligent Designer could have an infinite existance then the universe could as well. This is true. But my point of contention is that this Universe must still contain physical laws that must have an origin. The ID view has an explantion of this origin, I have yet to hear any others.

And then finally, your dilema: which is the simpler choice? I would have to say the Intelligent Designer, because, while it's difficult to say much about it/him/her/whatever, it can explain the origin of the laws of physics. Something that your version of the Universe has yet to accomplish. Although you could still be right and there could be an explantion yet to be discovered/brought to my attention; you could also say that the laws of Physics don't need an origin but then you'd have to explain how that works exactly. I find it simpler to beleve in an infinite, Intelligent Designer and an explanation than none at all.

[zimv20]

My example isn't about ID but occam's razor. IMHO it just seems like a natural creation \ evolution of everything from what causes subatomic particles to act they way they do to galaxies seems more complex then someone actually designing it.

atszyman got it right. an ID could explain our universe, but his/her very existence raises even more questions. it's not a simple explanation at all.

[GorillaPaws]

atszyman got it right. an ID could explain our universe, but his/her very existence raises even more questions. it's not a simple explanation at all.

It may not be simple, but it's more complete. Occam's razor only applies when all other things are equal. In this instance they're not equal, my theory explains the origins of the natural laws of the universe and thereby its creation, your theory has not. So even if brining in a Intelligent Designer raises many other questions, they are either answerable, irrelevant to the issue, or are less significant than the ones it answers.

[solvs]

actually, if you want to add that possibility within a science class it is NOT fine and I for one would argue against that.
Not even to say "it's ok that you believe in God"? My High School science teacher approached it in a way that was pretty inclusive. "Some people believe that a god created the universe. Here's a theory about how life evolved. It's only a theory, but it has a lot of scientific basis behind it and we're learning new things about it everyday. It doesn't disprove ID, and may even compliment it."

Kinda sad that science needs a disclaimer, but it's ok to be open to other's religious beliefs. ;)

[GorillaPaws]

Not even to say "it's ok that you believe in God"? My High School science teacher approached it in a way that was pretty inclusive. "Some people believe that a god created the universe. Here's a theory about how life evolved. It's only a theory, but it has a lot of scientific basis behind it and we're learning new things about it everyday. It doesn't disprove ID, and may even compliment it."

Kinda sad that science needs a disclaimer, but it's ok to be open to other's religious beliefs. ;)

Yeah... that's cool w/ me. I just think it sucks when they try to teach ID as a substitute for evolution or as a legitimate scientific theory. They definetly shouldn't tell kids that their faith is wrong, that would be worse than teaching them pseudo-science!

[zimv20]

Occam's razor only applies when all other things are equal.
and in this case, what things are unequal?

[GorillaPaws]

and in this case, what things are unequal?

That this warped theory of ID can explain the origins of the laws of gravity, Relativity, etc. The normal universe theory can give an account of the beginning of the universe (or succession of universes), but cannot explain the origin of the phycial laws required to produce the big bang or whatever physicists think it might have been. In other words they are presupposing the existence of these laws prior to the creation of the universe. In this sense, the warped theroy of ID can explain the origin of these laws and therefore the origin of the universe.

It seems like the challenge here for the normal universe theorists is to explain how the big bang could have happened without gravity, relativity etc., or explain where gravity, relativity, etc. came from before the universe ever existed.

The warped theory of ID can explain both the complexity of these physical laws (Plindin pointed out how finely constrained the universe is, that if there was an error of even 1/mill things wouldn't work out) since they were masterminded by a brilliant IDer, and the origin of these laws since the IDer created them. On looking back, I seemed to have strayed away from the Teleological argument into more Cosmological grounds. But I don't think I've strayed completely from an ID's position. After all we're talking about the Intelligent Design of this universe, one consisting of basic physical Laws that were intended to produce places(i.e. plannets) capapble of evolving life.

[.Andy]

Yeah... that's cool w/ me. I just think it sucks when they try to teach ID as a substitute for evolution or as a legitimate scientific theory. They definetly shouldn't tell kids that their faith is wrong, that would be worse than teaching them pseudo-science!
I think I'm in love :p.

[zimv20]

It seems like the challenge here for the normal universe theorists is to explain how the big bang could have happened without gravity, relativity etc., or explain where gravity, relativity, etc. came from before the universe ever existed.

and absent humans being able to describe it, it therefore must be god? that's what i mentioned beforehand -- why does the reality of the universe depend on man's understanding of it?

[takao]

I agree w/ you on this. This kind of debate may have a place in the classroom, but not in science class. There are more important things to be learning about in there. Like how all of the dinosaurs are really just God's way of testing our faith (I'm TOTALLY JOKING).


correct and there where the difference to Intelligent Design "scientists" normally is.. you in fact, are actually pretty close to the position of the cahtolic church.. for the church the theoligical/philoshophial discussion ends before the big bang..while for the Intelligent Design guys.. it doesn't ... ( depends on the "scientists":rolleyes:) ..

that aside: just some side infos: the laws of nature weren't always the same... if you're close to the big bang... sure its a period ofless than a few seconds but if you are down to 10^-43 seconds it's get pretty weird but amazingly interesting

Intelligent design wants it to be taught in the biology classroom while it should belong in Philosophy class...

[takao]

A infinitly cyclical Universe - this begs the question aren't there still laws governing this cyclical behavior? Where did these originate? Not to mention that you have to rationalize the concept of infinity.

at the moment the theory of the cyclical universe ("closed") is on the way out ..at least in astronomy .. at the moment it looks like it's either a "flat" or a "open" one (kinda complicated) .. from the speed of expansion "flat" is the prefered theory at the moment (so said the astronomy guy at my university course)
about "flat": it's like surface of a ballon blown up extremly: if you stand o nthe surface it looks like a flaz surface but it isn't ;)

[atszyman]

And then finally, your dilema: which is the simpler choice? I would have to say the Intelligent Designer, because, while it's difficult to say much about it/him/her/whatever, it can explain the origin of the laws of physics. Something that your version of the Universe has yet to accomplish. Although you could still be right and there could be an explantion yet to be discovered/brought to my attention; you could also say that the laws of Physics don't need an origin but then you'd have to explain how that works exactly. I find it simpler to beleve in an infinite, Intelligent Designer and an explanation than none at all.

Here is where you make the leap that I don't see. How is it an easier choice to say that there exists some entity outside of the laws of physics, that has ever-present and eternal, and say that that is a simpler explanation than just saying that the laws of physics are ever-present and eternal?

Both explanations require the laws of physics to exist, however one explanation also requires the existence of an all-powerful being to create these laws. I think the theory without the creator is the easier one.

[mactastic]

Jesus, this thread sure erupted overnight...

The main point that has been mentioned, but lost in the debate over whether ID is valid as an explanation is that MYTH SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT IN BIOLOGY OR HISTORY CLASSES!

As for ID, forget it. Teach the freakin creation myth straight out of the Bible. Don't try to fancy it up with all this comparison to a watch. But teach it in an elective literature class, or an elective philosophy class. Heck I took a class in HS that was a junior elective called 'Dreams and Myths'. Great instructor, and we looked at many creation myths as part of the course. Didn't have to dress up the Biblical one in any fancy duds, just discussed it as a myth.

If you want it discussed as fact, take you kid to church.

[.Andy]

Also, you can disprove the existence of a non-observable, non-testable entity: A sphere with corners cannot exist. But you haven't disproven the existance of a sphere-cube. All that you've done is illustrate that the very concept of a sphere-cube is a logical absurdity[i/]. That is that within the confines of geomoetry the attributes of one shape is mutually exclusive of the other.

As for the science not being able to disprove philosophy and vice-versa, this actually happens all the time.I'm going to stand by this - I've thought about it a lot! My reasoning is that philosophy and science approach problem sets using differing tools. Thus although they may be tackling the [i]same problem they are coming at it from completely different angles. The result is that although the final answer may be completely different, both solutions may be correct given initial perspective. Thus I don't believe that one conclusion could ever definitively render the other null and void.

I can't think of any examples off my head, but oftentimes physicists and metaphysists will help each other out. I know for a fact that philosophy is constantly evolving based on new breakthroughs in physics these often prove metaphysical theories false. Also, I think some of the metaphysical work on possibility has helped the evolution of physics like that famous laser being split experiment (I don't remember the name and I could be very wrong here). But all of this isn't really the point here. Oh and thanks for agreeing w/ me about the two co-existing, some people refused to believe that possiblility earlier.

What you go onto say here I completely and absolutely agree with :). Science and philosophy are extremely beneficial to each other. For example without the philosophy of the scientific method, progress would not be as advanced as it currently is. And of course this works the other way. Advances in science will always open up new grounds for which philosophy can gain a new vantage point.

As for your occam's razor views I think atszyman is doing a pretty good enough job of expressing my views.

[GorillaPaws]

This is why I love MacRumors. Can you imagine a rational discussion like this ever taking place on a windows board (it'd be a stupid, flame-fest)?

and absent humans being able to describe it, it therefore must be god? that's what i mentioned beforehand -- why does the reality of the universe depend on man's understanding of it?

It's not a therefore there is a God, but that the existence of an IDer seems to best explain this phenomnena in the absence of a better explantion from science, therefore there is a good POSSIBILITY that an IDer exists. Reality is not dependant on man's understanding (I don't think this is an assumption of the Warped Theory of ID).

correct and there where the difference to Intelligent Design "scientists" normally is..

Right. we both agree on this. I'm just trying to point out that the INITIAL phlilosphy behind this may yet still have some merrit; Again, I agree that how it's been constructed by these "pesudo-scientist/theologians" is crap. Yeah... this Warped theory of ID does pretty much end w/ the big bang (but it presupposes that the big bang was the inevitable result of the creation of physical laws, and that this process was done with the intent to ultimately create life).

that aside: just some side infos: the laws of nature weren't always the same... if you're close to the big bang... sure its a period ofless than a few seconds but if you are down to 10^-43 seconds it's get pretty weird but amazingly interesting...

at the moment the theory of the cyclical universe ("closed") is on the way out ..at least in astronomy .. at the moment it looks like it's either a "flat" or a "open" one (kinda complicated) .. from the speed of expansion "flat" is the prefered theory at the moment (so said the astronomy guy at my university course)
about "flat": it's like surface of a ballon blown up extremly: if you stand o nthe surface it looks like a flaz surface but it isn't

I did not know any of this (it's absolutly facitinating IMHO), thanks for brining it to my attention (do you know of any good sources that explains these theories-- but at a level a non-physicist can understand-- I'd aprreciate it). Even if we assume its true, I still don't think it poses a new threat to the Warped theory of ID (WTID). Because even if the laws of physics were different (if even for a nano second), there would still have to be laws govenrning how these laws evolve (something the WTID explains)-- like a law that explains how e=(mc^2)+1 became e=mc^2 (this is just a clearly false hypothetical example-- but you know what I'm trying to say).

Here is where you make the leap that I don't see. How is it an easier choice to say that there exists some entity outside of the laws of physics, that has ever-present and eternal, and say that that is a simpler explanation than just saying that the laws of physics are ever-present and eternal?

Both explanations require the laws of physics to exist, however one explanation also requires the existence of an all-powerful being to create these laws. I think the theory without the creator is the easier one.

You're ripping me appart(in a good way ;) )! But I still think WTID can explain this, I'm not sure you're going to like it though. Let me touch on your last point first, that they both require the Laws of Physics to exist but that one w/ out the IDer is simpler. The WTID explains the orgin of the Laws of Physics, while the Normal Theory of the Universe (NTU) in this case is presupposing the existence of these laws prior to the inception of the universe, because they have always existed as you claim. We agree up to here right? I would say that there is a major problem with this presupposition. Can gravity (a force) exist without mass on which to act upon? If we were to do a calculation to determine the force between two objects of mass 0, we would determine that there is in fact a force of 0. There is no force when there is no universe. I think the NTU is going to have to explain this self-contradiction.

To your first point: that the existance some ever-present, eternal, entity outside of the laws of physics is a difficult pill to swallow (more difficult than the pre-existence of the Laws of Physics). This is another great point, the answer to which you may be disinclined to accept. But the simple answer is that there are lots of things that exist outside the Laws of Physics, like concepts. But more to the point, there are things that can exist prior to the inception of the universe like Logic. For example, the Law of Non-Contradition can exist prior to the existence of the Universe (this would be an infinite/eternal law that even an IDer could not violate). I guess, one possible explation for the NTUers would be to demonstrate how the laws of physics may be derived from this law. I don't think this is possible however.

Now the acceptance of an IDer also creates several other problems, such as how a non-physical entity can effect physical phenomena (like the Laws of Physics). The only answer I can think of is that the IDer has a special kind of causality (one that no other entity in the universe has). This may be something that the WTID may have to simply accept. Nevertheless, I would argue that this seems like an easier pill to swallow than the self-contradiction problem for the NTUers.

[skunk]

The whole idea of a god/designer creating the universe is so ludicrous and so redundant. How does it work? Was this entity working on the designs for aeons before starting construction? Did it think about it for ages before committing anything to paper? Did it have to get the drawings and calcs past Planning? Did it really put it all together x-billion years ago and then drop in again 150,000 years ago to add homo sapiens to the mix, like an afterthought? Was that an omission? What about the appendix? Was that a mistake, or what? This ID/God-Thingy has done seven days' work in fifteen billion years, and some of it was really shoddy: even George Bush has managed better than that.

[GorillaPaws]

The whole idea of a god/designer creating the universe is so ludicrous and so redundant. How does it work? Was this entity working on the designs for aeons before starting construction? Did it think about it for ages before committing anything to paper? Did it have to get the drawings and calcs past Planning? Did it really put it all together x-billion years ago and then drop in again 150,000 years ago to add homo sapiens to the mix, like an afterthought? Was that an omission? What about the appendix? Was that a mistake, or what? This ID/God-Thingy has done seven days' work in fifteen billion years, and some of it was really shoddy: even George Bush has managed better than that.

Fortunatly, the WTID doesn't have to explain these things (that's for the theologians to work out). And the Bush comment was great! :D

[atszyman]

You're ripping me appart(in a good way ;) )! But I still think WTID can explain this, I'm not sure you're going to like it though. Let me touch on your last point first, that they both require the Laws of Physics to exist but that one w/ out the IDer is simpler. The WTID explains the orgin of the Laws of Physics, while the Normal Theory of the Universe (NTU) in this case is presupposing the existence of these laws prior to the inception of the universe, because they have always existed as you claim. We agree up to here right? I would say that there is a major problem with this presupposition. Can gravity (a force) exist without mass on which to act upon? If we were to do a calculation to determine the force between two objects of mass 0, we would determine that there is in fact a force of 0. There is no force when there is no universe. I think the NTU is going to have to explain this self-contradiction.

To your first point: that the existance some ever-present, eternal, entity outside of the laws of physics is a difficult pill to swallow (more difficult than the pre-existence of the Laws of Physics). This is another great point, the answer to which you may be disinclined to accept. But the simple answer is that there are lots of things that exist outside the Laws of Physics, like concepts. But more to the point, there are things that can exist prior to the inception of the universe like Logic. For example, the Law of Non-Contradition can exist prior to the existence of the Universe (this would be an infinite/eternal law that even an IDer could not violate). I guess, one possible explation for the NTUers would be to demonstrate how the laws of physics may be derived from this law. I don't think this is possible however.


Ok your argument is that I still haven't explained the matter in the universe, but along with assuming that the laws are ever-present and eternal why can't the mass be ever present and eternal as well? Isn't this still simpler than the existence of an entity existing outside of the known laws of the universe that can "magically" create matter and re-write physical laws?

Jesus, this thread sure erupted overnight...

The main point that has been mentioned, but lost in the debate over whether ID is valid as an explanation is that MYTH SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT IN BIOLOGY OR HISTORY CLASSES!

As for ID, forget it. Teach the freakin creation myth straight out of the Bible. Don't try to fancy it up with all this comparison to a watch. But teach it in an elective literature class, or an elective philosophy class. Heck I took a class in HS that was a junior elective called 'Dreams and Myths'. Great instructor, and we looked at many creation myths as part of the course. Didn't have to dress up the Biblical one in any fancy duds, just discussed it as a myth.

If you want it discussed as fact, take you kid to church.

We've moved beyond that at the moment, I think almost everyone in this debate already admitted that ID should not be taught in science class. Now I'm just having fun...:)

[mactastic]

Yeah, who gave God his building permits eh? Now there's a head scratcher!
:D

Must have been some costly permitting too. Probably why some of the planets are mostly gas instead of solid. He never thought we'd figure that one out did he...

[Don't panic]

Not even to say "it's ok that you believe in God"? My High School science teacher approached it in a way that was pretty inclusive. "Some people believe that a god created the universe. Here's a theory about how life evolved. It's only a theory, but it has a lot of scientific basis behind it and we're learning new things about it everyday. It doesn't disprove ID, and may even compliment it."


it is of course ok to believe in god, it is not ok to present evolution and ID as scientific alternatives or as different explanations for the same observations. Although evolution in general is to be considered a theory, the supporting evidence is based on "facts".
The earth is billions of years old. Life began as "simpler" organisms that slowly began more and more "complex" (from an antropocentric point of view). all living creatures are genetically linked through evolutionary trees. we share common ancestors with other living beings.
the 'forces' of evolution are as real as the 'force' of gravity.
The "need" to invoke a "guiding force" or an intelligent designer is to all effects, zero. You can of course still believe in its existence, but to 'require' it, is intellectually naive or dishonest.

Also i'd like to point out that the push (at least in the US) from the most vocal ID-iotists is for it to be an alternative to evolution and to the appearance to life on earth, speciation and so on, while there is much less emphasis (if any) on cosmogonies and the questions GorillaPaws is interested in.
ID in the US is currently a dishonest (IMO) attempt to cloak hard line creationism in pseudo-scientific dresses. They have tried (successfully, apparently) to convince some of the public that there is a scientific controversy going on, where there is none.

[solvs]

it is not ok to present evolution and ID as scientific alternatives or as different explanations for the same observations.
I think we're on the same page. My belief in god is purely esoteric. For a person to reject a fact based theory for a faith based hypothesis doesn't make sense, but certainly if we want religious people to be open minded to science, science can be open to faith. Why do people keep thinking the 2 are mutually exclusive? I'm thinking everyone is misunderstanding the concept of god.

[tristan]

I think it's doubtful that the same God that created the universe would really care if you wore a condom or had a creche on your lawn or went to Mecca. Sounds like he's got bigger fish to fry (though not on friday).

That's the "scale" problem of God. I believe something created the universe, and I'll go a little further and say that I think all living things have a soul and there does seem to be an organizing principle in the universe pushing towards order. You can call the creator, giver of souls, and the organizing principle "God", but I still don't think he came down and gave Moses any commandments. I can't imagine a God that big worrying about issues that small.

[JesseJames]

How about a wrench in the works?

If man is Gods choice as the ultimate, I'm questioning the wisdom of God or Intelligent Designer.
I have to wonder that man's belief in God is just an extension of his ego.
There have been many evolutionary dead ends. Mankind could be responsible for the eradication of some close cousins very long ago. Where's the Intelligent Design in all that?
Aren't the 'higher' organisms just colonies of smaller organisms working in concert?
Could God actually be in the details? On a nano-physical scale?
We know the ingredients, we know how they come together and work. But we still have to get to the big question - why? Why does it all come together in that glorious double helix?

[skunk]

Are we not just a zit on the perfectly smooth face of eternity?

[xsedrinam]

Are we not just a zit on the perfectly smooth face of eternity?
It's not that pimple.

[zimv20]

It's not that pimple.
well, not if american politicians don't stand up. they should follow the example of george galloway, MP for bethnal green and somewhere else, but i don't think it's 'acne.

[skunk]

well, not if american politicians don't stand up. they should follow the example of george galloway, MP for bethnal green and somewhere else, but i don't think it's 'acne.Spot on.

[jayscheuerle]

and absent humans being able to describe it, it therefore must be god? that's what i mentioned beforehand -- why does the reality of the universe depend on man's understanding of it?

Ha! That's actually backwards. The reality of God depends on man's creation of the concept. The Intelligent Designer was created by a not so intelligent designer who was created in the Intelligent Designer's image. Therefore the Intelligent Designer is an unintelligent as the image He created of Himself, but He needed his image to be unintelligent enough to need to create an Intelligent Designer in the first place in order to necessitate His existence to compensate of the image's lack of intelligence in seeing the world's true design.

Seriously, if we're the best God could do, He's a slacker and a bonehead. Perhaps He's the botched product of an Intelligent God Designer who fell asleep at the wheel. Of all the Gods to get, we get the mentally disabled one with a big sense of humor, apparently laughing at anything, like a retard in a stuffed animal factory. Surely there's got to be another universe out there that has an creature created in its God's image that doesn't watch reality TV, eat processed cheese, light farts and pay $$ for bottled water. The only other explanation is that God created sunsets and then passed off the rest of the job to disgruntled underlings.

I.D. proponents and other evangelicals have nowhere to go but backwards. Time and knowledge will weed them out and kill them off, but not without a lot of kicking and crying and making a fuss. Got to give a hand to their persistence of using ignorance as their ultimate weapon. That's why heaven is so blissful I guess... - j

[jayscheuerle]

We know the ingredients, we know how they come together and work. But we still have to get to the big question - why? Why does it all come together in that glorious double helix?

The fallacy is that there needs to be a "why".

A couple of billion years can do pretty well by trial and error...

[blackfox]

Interesting thread here - enjoyable read.

This thread, however, presents (to me) the crux of the problem with regard to ID vs Evolution.

While ID is an interesting thing to ponder, and makes an excellent conversation piece/philosophical exercise - this does not in any way legitimize its' worth as an example of truth.

I have seen some thoughtful back-and-forth on this issue in this thread, by some thoughtful people - but I cannot help but think that many people (not in this thread necessarily) cannot see the forest for the trees on this issue and/or that there are those who manipulate this increased attention on ID (as it is debated, philosophically or otherwise) as leverage to it's legitimacy vis-a-vis Evolution.

I love(d) philosophy. I found it to be very enriching and thought-provoking. I also remember being able to successfully argue the absurd.

The above may or may not be rhetorical. Does that make it more or less truthful?

[solvs]

I also remember being able to successfully argue the absurd.
Like Flying Spagettit Monsters? :p

[jayscheuerle]

Like Flying Spagettit Monsters? :p

And that's more absurd than the idea of God or Santa Claus because...?

[Don't panic]

And that's more absurd than the idea of God or Santa Claus because...?


woa woa woa.
don't you touch Santa!

[jayscheuerle]

woa woa woa.
don't you touch Santa!

Hey! He touched me FIRST!!!

(speaking of touching boys, let's get back to the original post...)

[solvs]

And that's more absurd than the idea of God or Santa Claus because...?
That's my point. ;)

There was a Santa once though. And there probably is a god. I just don't think it's what we think it is.

[Don't panic]

There was a Santa once though. And there probably is a god. I just don't think it's what we think it is.

this time you got me positively :confused:

[solvs]

this time you got me positively :confused:
About the real Santa, or what god really is?

[iBlue]

Hey! He touched me FIRST!!!

(speaking of touching boys, let's get back to the original post...)

*swish* :D

[Don't panic]

About the real Santa, or what god really is?

mostly about an allegedly real guy living at the north pole and flying around in a sled who, I must assume, got shot down for transpassing onto some no-fly zone. who did it? Can't be the canadians and I wouldn't think it's the norwegians (though they do like killing whales), so it must be us or the russians. (i'd think the soviets would have let him alone with all that anti-capitalistic giving away stuff for free, and zooming around all draped in red).

Also the "there probably is a god" got me puzzled. In common usage, "probably" indicates something not certain, but more likely to be true than not.
Now, if you believe, then there is one (probability=1).
If you don't believe, then there isn't one (prob=0).
If you want to keep your options open, but be rational about it, "probably" there isn't one (as there is no evidence for it), but it cannot be excluded either (0<prob<<<1).
So, "possibly there is a god" is fine, "probably" or "likely" there is a god, not.
As far as what is this god-person anyways, I agree that if she/he/it exists, it is "most likely" entirely different from any of the depictions given by the various religions

[jayscheuerle]

As far as what is this god-person anyways, I agree that if she/he/it exists, it is "most likely" entirely different from any of the depictions given by the various religions

His physicality has already been revealed.

[solvs]

I agree that if she/he/it exists, it is "most likely" entirely different from any of the depictions given by the various religions
Yep.

And Santa's based on a real guy. Well, maybe 2 guys. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_clause They're dead now though.

[xsedrinam]

Yep.

And Santa's based on a real guy. Well, maybe 2 guys. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_clause They're dead now though.
Ahhhh, sweet. Make sure you spread the word.