Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 143

Thread: OT: Evolution vs intelligent design

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    South FL. Which is not to be confused with any part of the USA
    Posts
    9,302
    LMAO!







    btw, Santa said everybody has it wrong.
    "George never did wake up. And, even all that talking didn't make death any easier...at least not for us. Maybe, in the end, all you can really hope for is that your last thought is a nice one...even if it's just about the taste of a nice cold beer."

    "If you find the right balance between desperation and fear you can make people believe anything"

    "Is enlightenment even possible? Or, did I drive by it like a missed exit?"

    It's simpler than you think.

    I could be completely wrong"

  2. #32
    Hi Mika,

    You are attempting to load the discussion according to your own parameters. You are the one who has stated my assertions are not valid, but deflect the discussion to Dawkins. I am not here to debate Dawkins. I am not emotionally offended by his assertions. I clearly see his flaws in reasoning. Your method of disagreement with my assertions is to deflect the discussion to Dawkins and avoiding addressing directly the flaws of the argument presented. You are not required by any law to follow an accepted paradigm of reasonable discussion. I merely point out you are not following any productive or meaningful method of response.

    The following comment was written prior to your present reply. It is not intended to introduce or discuss at length Dawkins; only to express my fascination with the devotion he seems to receive from some who don’t appear to perceive his flaws in reasoning. You have asserted my argument is flawed, but repeatedly refuse to demonstrate the flaws. If you continue to decline I can accept that, but your comments then carry no inherent value or meaning and are reduced to mere a belief not necessarily based upon reason.

    Hi cjurakpt,

    LOL!! I am sorry, but I am greatly amused by this fascination with Dawkins. The article you referenced is no different than the one referenced by Mika and uses just as flawed reasoning.

    His very first sentence makes an assertion that implies only two interpretations are available to choose from. He has setup the argument as an either/or proposition. This is tantamount to loading the dice in order to win the game. He has loaded his argument by narrowing the field of possibility. He assumes that we must accept EITHER evolution OR ID, but not both or any other yet unconsidered or undiscovered option. He appears to assume that there may be only two possibilities: evolution or special creation. This is ludicrous; he is caught within his own narrow preconceive view and I reject his premise!

    Dawkins makes blanket assertions without providing any foundation for his conclusions. He feels free to criticize the flawed logic of the “religious” ID’s and at the same time seems to think that because they use flawed logic to disprove evolution, evolution is thereby proven. This is the same faulty logic he accuses the ID’s of using! His premise is that evolution is a fact so he never proceeds to proofs that demonstrate it. Since he takes it as a fact and merely demonstrates the flawed logic of evolutions opponents, he never demonstrates evolution to be fact he simply repeatedly asserts it is so.

    He asserts the consequences of the laws of physics are the illusion of seemingly Intelligent Design. He asserts it is an illusion without demonstrating how this occurs only that it is so. He assumes the ID’s want to believe in ID and therefore find design where design is absent, but does not demonstrate how it is absent. He merely ridicules their ignorance. This is not the behavior of an unbiased reporter of fact, but one with his own political agenda!

    His assumption the Laws of Physics allow phenomena to “just happen” disregards the fact that the Laws of Physics follow the principles of reason, that is the process of cause and effect. Using the Laws of Physics to explain an evolutionary consequence does not address where the Laws of Physics originated nor does it demonstrate why we have the Laws of Physics we have and not other unimagined ones. He is a biologist and not a deep thinker. He has a preconceived view and doesn’t seem to be able to perceive his own unfounded assumptions; he only denigrates those of others. I do not intended to imply I agree with the flawed logic he identifies as originating from ID believers, only that his logic is not much better. He is no philosopher who looks deeper into their own basic assumptions and deeper meanings.

    He fails to recognize that evolution itself follows the principles of physics and it is these principles that indicate ID. They do not prove it, but the do indicate the possibility and plausibility of it.

    He IS clearly full of himself!!

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown
    Hi Mika,

    You are attempting to load the discussion according to your own parameters. You are the one who has stated my assertions are not valid, but deflect the discussion to Dawkins. I am not here to debate Dawkins. I am not emotionally offended by his assertions. I clearly see his flaws in reasoning. Your method of disagreement with my assertions is to deflect the discussion to Dawkins and avoiding addressing directly the flaws of the argument presented. You are not required by any law to follow an accepted paradigm of reasonable discussion. I merely point out you are not following any productive or meaningful method of response.
    Now you contradict yourself as the last sentence clearly states that you yourself are doing what you accuse me of in the first sentence.

    Anywho, Dawkins is far more advanced in this issue than you and me combined, so it is only natural to refer to him.

    You see flaws in his reasoning?
    Of course you do. Please, be so kind as to point them out for me, will you?
    (I know, you kind of did, but not really; you are missing a lot here; that's what I have been trying to tell you ).


    Nah, this isn't worth it, like CNS said (great link, btw). My only responsibility is to my own peeps at Potku, all rest are someone's else homies.

    Scott, keep at it. Study some more, rely less on your common sense or something, and you will advance on this issue. But, as the Good Book teaches us, "pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall"*. Scott, you know nothing or very little of the subject matter, so don't hide behind your rhetorics but go to work and learn something. That's what I did when all of this was new to me. I certainly wasn't trying to debate it on intuition and emotion, let alone without thorough enough academic study into it. Again, no offense, just an honest observation. *Take or leave it.

    Peace out,

    Mika
    Last edited by Mika; 12-25-2005 at 12:34 PM.
    ”The freethinking of one age is the common sense of the next.” Matthew Arnold

    Exercise Masters
    Potkua!
    Fen Lan Tang Lang Men

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Lakeland Fl USA
    Posts
    4,147
    I don't know if this has been said before. I haven't read the thread becasue , well, I don't want to.

    My question:

    Why can't science and evolution BE the intelligent design?

    As carl sagan said, We are made of star stuff, so we may be the universe trying to become aware of itself.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Vancouver, B.C. Canada
    Posts
    2,140

    Smile Inquisition age...

    The problem I see with ID is that it would more than likely bring back the inquistion because most of the "scientific" evidences can be thrown out of court by the line of "reasoning" (goodbye CSI and hallow torture chamber!). Our society will not benefit from it, rather it will suffer. No offense to my American friends, don't say it's not happening but just look at what's happening arround the world and within US soil since 911. Sorry to say there is inherit danger in Monotheistic teaching.

    If there really is an Intelligent Designer (ie God), than he must suffers, by Buddhist's "reasoning" the same as the phenonimal world as we know it. Hack, we might just be the "Sin" (or Karma in Hindu tradition) that which he suffers. Who caused him so that he can caused us (the effect)? What was his higher purpose (the design) then? Was he like "his son" on earth that meant to suffer for or rather from us? Anyway, I don't know nothing but I do suffer like any sentient and non sentient being. So....

    Namaste to all,

    Mantis108
    Contraria Sunt Complementa

    對敵交手歌訣

    凡立勢不可站定。凡交手須是要走。千着萬着﹐走為上着﹐進為高着﹐閃賺騰挪為
    妙着。


    CCK TCPM in Yellowknife

    TJPM Forum

  6. #36
    The methods used to date things (because the world has to be older than the Bible says to accomodate macro evolution, another unscientific assumption) are theoretical, and have been repeatedly called into question.
    May I ask which methods these are and how have they called into question?


    Intelligent design is not merely a concept based upon blind faith or religious precepts......Plato noted that all things in the universe are moved by other things. Indeed, anything that moves is moved by something else that is itself moving. By reduction he reasoned there must be, at some point, an eternal primordial prime mover.
    But isn't an argument for a "prime mover" inherently a argument for the existence of a diety? How is this not sophistry, your argument saying that Intelligent design is not a merely a concept about relgious beliefs; all this says is that not all people who posit similar theories with Intelligent design are Christian.

    Of course, you later say

    You are a bit incorrect in your assessment of ID. Not all who propose ID posit a Christian God. I refer you to my post regarding Plato’s views on this matter.
    The argument, nevertheless still points to a diety of some sort; by saying it is not necessarily a Christian God doesn't take away from the ultimate conclusion of a creator and also also serves to divert attention away from the real political machinations of most of it's supporters.

    By the way, isn't Plato the one who, using the classic Greek didactic method of a "conversation" in the Symposium, have much of the discussion on the nature of love etc begin a priori with Aristophenes' description of how both sexes originated from a fission from an original unisex being as being true? Just pointing out that Plato or any philosopher are only as good as the facts or assumptions they start out with.....

    In scientific terms we may say: “Energy was imposed upon a system that did not possess its own inherent energy!”
    But from what I understand (which is not alot mind you), the total measurable energy in the universe is almost zero; nothing violates the first law because no energy was added to create the universe as we know it; the second law only holds if we assume that the universe is a closed system of constant volume. Also since I'm not a physicist, can anyone out there give a good definition of entropy; it isn't chaos or disorder as we non-physicist use it. Now, I'm not here to argue that there is in fact creation ex nihilo, but that these arguements about conservations of energy should probably be argued by people better equipped to deal with the nuances of the math.

    [QUOTE] “Energy was imposed upon a system that did not possess its own inherent energy!” This “Energy” has been called many things, “The Creative Force of the Universe” will do for purposes of this discussion! Since this Creative Force has dominion over physical matter and has the ability to order it, and since this order follows the principles of cause and effect, that is REASON, we may deduce the Creative Force is not merely eternal, but reasoned as well!!
    QUOTE]

    But if energy wasn't imposed on the system if my earlier point is correct, does your entire line of reasoning fall apart? By the way, as a strawman point I'll make, on a macro level Newtonian physics works quite well, but falls apart at the quantum level. Does that invalidate all his observation on, say gravity, gravity?

    There is no inherent reason ID must disregard evolution. Even amongst Christians there is nothing inherent within the Bible that negates the possibility of evolution.
    Which again diverts attention away from the political motivations behind much of the movement. Incidentally, I grew up in Western Pennsylvannia; I know a few people that would disagree with "is nothing inherent within the Bible that negates the possibility of evolution." But then, your argument ultimately gives way to proving whether or not there is a creator (God; let's not mince words here) by punching holes into your sample of defects in in evolutionary theory. I understand that you may not be part of the movement, but this is part of the debate.

    A moth whose wings were once brown, but are now white, is proof of adaptation, not evolution.
    Very true.

    The breeding of dogs to get the various diverse breeds are an example of guided adaptation. They remain dogs! We CANNOT breed dogs until we get a bird.
    True again, but you are arguing against evolution by bringing up an example of adaptation. We do however, have examples of speciation, tigers and lions for example, donkeys and horses. Not exactly a dog to a bird, but yours is a strawman argument because this is not what evolution argues is happening.

    Dawkins...He is no philosopher who looks deeper into their own basic assumptions and deeper meanings.
    True, but then you and I are not evoluntionary biologist. Somehow we think our opinions are well reasoned. Incidentally, why do people insist on interpreting data through a philosophical or religious prism? Scientists are biased enough interpreting their own data when they have their own little pet hypotheses.

    He fails to recognize that evolution itself follows the principles of physics and it is these principles that indicate ID. They do not prove it, but the do indicate the possibility and plausibility of it.
    Again, if the creation of the itself doesn't require the addition of energy outside the system, of course I may be wrong in my understanding, then how do the three laws support ID?

    It takes greater faith to believe everything sprung spontaneously out of nothing than to consider an Intelligent Designer.
    I think that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. You have a theory, you test the theory or parts of the theory (no matter how limited the scope, and then revise or disgard as needed. Aside from the inductive reasoning that has been outlined, which actually require a set of a priori assumptions (which of course science and mathmatics have as well (e.g. a line is the shortest distance between any two points)) is there anyway to test the existance of a creator? Last time I checked, God has been been proven to exist by every other thinker, mathamatician, physicist, theologian, in the canon; we're still arguing about. The argument over, say synaptic transmission between neurons only lasted about 70-100 years; although last time I checked, the scientologist were making headway debunking some of it.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Austin TX
    Posts
    6,440
    It doesn't count as spiritually fulfilling unless it involves an old white guy with a long beard, you silly goose! Well, I guess a baby with an elephant's head or a giant dung beetle would work in a pinch.
    All my fight strategy is based on deliberately injuring my opponents. -
    Crippled Avenger

    "It is the same in all wars; the soldiers do the fighting, the journalists do the shouting, and no true patriot ever get near a front-line trench, except on the briefest of propoganda visits...Perhaps when the next great war comes we may see that sight unprecendented in all history, a jingo with a bullet-hole in him."

    First you get good, then you get fast, then you get good and fast.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Lakeland Fl USA
    Posts
    4,147
    Man is very arrogant in claiming the center for himself. Both sides want to be such a center.

    The idea that God created the heavens and the earth is not outside scientific study.

    Frankly, man gives himself, or that which conciders "himself", to be the ultimate product. When In fact we aren't that important. We are a mole on the but of a flea that is biting the ankle of God's dog "spot". The best we can do in our INFINITE smallness is to plug in to that massive immeasurable signal. That, if anything, is prayer/connection/experience. Chemistry is divine, science is divine. In the beginning God created us in his own image. As per carl sagan, that image is 1. You can find that image on the periodic table of elements. That is where all this matter comes from.

    hadit at nuit.

    I do recommend capt morgan and vanilla coke, ****ing awesome.
    Last edited by SifuAbel; 12-26-2005 at 12:35 AM.

  9. #39
    Hi Mika,

    LOL!! Nice try!! I have not loaded the discussion I am following a thought process to explain why I believe what I do. You have disagreed with my conclusions by merely stating it is wrong not by demonstrating it to be so. You are once again attempting to divert the discussion. I have pointed out you are diverting the discussion and you consider this a means of me diverting the discussion? This is a false assertion! You claim superior learning, but continually fail to demonstrate it through reasoned argument. Stating you have greater learning, but providing no information merely means you are skilled at making unfounded claims. This is what Dawkins has done in the two polemics I have read. If you have as comprehensive an understanding of Dawkins’ arguments as you say then you should have no trouble stating the arguments in your own words, yet you refuse my request that you do so.

    I have adequately, and I do emphasis “only” adequately raised enough questions about Dawkins method of reasoning for the purposes of this thread. The appeal to authority you use is, as many understand, a logical fallacy. Just because Dawkins can turn a phrase and point out the logical flaws of others does not demonstrate his premise to be fact, only that the methods of reasoning he attacks are flawed. As I previously mentioned he assumes his premise to be fact, but never demonstrates the facts that make it so. This makes his article a diatribe and not a scholarly argument.

    I do not rely on common sense or rhetoric; I rely on a logical analysis of the argument and the presented facts. I have provided a reasoned argument for my view which demonstrates a conclusion from the premises. There is no reasoned argument when one assumes a conclusion without providing supporting evidence. Neither you nor Dawkins has provided a reasoned argument supporting your views not withstanding your fascination with HIS rhetorical style.

    It is clear you have no intention or perhaps no ability to address my argument. So I will wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!!

  10. #40
    Hi YMC,

    I) But isn't an argument for a "prime mover" inherently a argument for the existence of a diety? How is this not sophistry, your argument saying that Intelligent design is not a merely a concept about relgious beliefs; all this says is that not all people who posit similar theories with Intelligent design are Christian.

    Sophistry is the act of deliberately using false argument with the purpose to deceive. I have not done this. I have no intention to deceive nor am I covering for a hidden agenda. I am seeking Truth and I go where it leads, if it leads to a Christian God so be it, if it leads else where that is fine too.

    Whether one concludes a deity depends upon how one defines a deity. Many “assume” certain characteristics when considering a deity, but the existence of a deity does not presume specific characteristics of necessity! In western culture we tend to assume a deity is the Christian God. This is because this is the dominant view of God held by our culture. My argument does not automatically presume the Christian God; it does not rule it out either. Just because someone cannot conceive of another form of Intelligent Designer does not mean one cannot exist. For example: if one considers concept of Tao one may have an Intelligent “Something” called Tao, but would not necessarily presume a Christian God character. I am making no claims as to the character or motivations of an Intelligent Designer in this thread. I do have some thoughts on this, but I am, at present merely arguing the likelihood that one exists.

    II) The argument, nevertheless still points to a diety of some sort; by saying it is not necessarily a Christian God doesn't take away from the ultimate conclusion of a creator and also also serves to divert attention away from the real political machinations of most of it's supporters.

    I am not concerned with the political machinations of the supporters of a Christian God. I do not disrespect their cause either. There is a never ending battle for the various worldviews of men. I recognized this exists and I accept it will always exist. Proponents of a Christian God are not doing anything differently than proponents of “random cause”. They are arguing for their ideas and attempting to force them onto others. This is the manner of men and their ideas! I have no fear of a Christian God; neither do I fear the possible lack of a God. Part of that reason is I believe a God or ID is a probability. But if one were not to exist I don’t perceive myself as having necessarily lost anything of inherent value.

    My purpose is not to be an apologetic for the political views of “religious” ID’s, only to examine principles using reasoning. I do not personally see any conflict between evolution and ID. To me it is just as plausible that evolution demonstrates ID. The “theory” of evolution does not necessitate random chance, and even random chance itself does not negate the possibility of ID. Random chance could very possibly be part of the design. Evolution does not demonstrate the absence of ID it only demonstrates the absence of the special creation in seven days as asserted by Christians.

    III) By the way, isn't Plato the one who, using the classic Greek didactic method of a "conversation" in the Symposium, have much of the discussion on the nature of love etc begin a priori with Aristophenes' description of how both sexes originated from a fission from an original unisex being as being true? Just pointing out that Plato or any philosopher are only as good as the facts or assumptions they start out with.....

    Regarding your reference to Plato, you must note that I did not appeal to his authority; I referenced to a thought process of his and used the 3rd law of thermodynamics to argue for its plausibility. As such it does not matter what other improbable conclusions he may have arrived at regarding other subjects. If I formulate an unreasoned argument today it does not mean I am forbidden from providing a reasoned one tomorrow.

    IV) But from what I understand (which is not alot mind you), the total measurable energy in the universe is almost zero; nothing violates the first law because no energy was added to create the universe as we know it; the second law only holds if we assume that the universe is a closed system of constant volume. Also since I'm not a physicist, can anyone out there give a good definition of entropy; it isn't chaos or disorder as we non-physicist use it. Now, I'm not here to argue that there is in fact creation ex nihilo, but that these arguements about conservations of energy should probably be argued by people better equipped to deal with the nuances of the math.

    We assume nothing violates the first law but we cannot really know for sure. Even if you do postulate energy coming from outside the system we could still stay it is just part of a larger system. So this is a concept in which we may not get to a satisfactory conclusion.

    Entropy is the amount of energy within a system that is no longer available for work. It implies a cooling of the universe to near, but not absolute, zero. This is generally accepted as meaning the tendency towards chaos or disorder. All chaos is, is undifferentiated substance or disorder. In other words it takes work to order a system and work is measured by the heat it produces as a by product. So as heat diminishes we infer less work is being accomplished and a state of disorder results.

    V) But if energy wasn't imposed on the system if my earlier point is correct, does your entire line of reasoning fall apart? By the way, as a strawman point I'll make, on a macro level Newtonian physics works quite well, but falls apart at the quantum level. Does that invalidate all his observation on, say gravity, gravity?

    You raise some interesting questions concerning the seeming laws of physics. We must not assume the Laws of Physics “we accept” to be necessarily absolute as they are presently defined. Science continually redefines Laws of Nature based upon new evidence. At one point it was believed that the speed of light within a vacuum was constant, however new discoveries are questioning this hypothesis. Herein lays a flaw amongst many scientists. They state as certainty facts that are only based upon the latest evidence. They repeatedly fail to qualify their statements of fact.

    Newton’s observations on gravity should be understood to apply within a specific context. Within that context they may at this time, according to the evidence we presently have, accept them as certainties.

    We may presume we live in a closed system and we may presume that matter may not be added to or subtracted from this system based upon our current understanding of the Laws of Physics, but this does not mean we have a complete understanding of these Laws. If all questions were answered we would have no reason for curiosity.

    As a philosopher I may look beyond the Laws of Physical Matter to postulate other principles as possible. For example: if we consider mind as non-physical we can accept its influence within a closed “physical” system without necessarily adding anything tangible to the system. The question of “What is mind?” is for another discussion. Suffice it to say that because we cannot conceive of a solution to a dilemma does not mean a solution does not exist only that we are at present unable to find one.

    When I mentioned energy as being “imposed from without” it was meant to illustrate the idea that “something” from the outside of “the closed system of the experiment” was necessary to induce the amino acid creation. This was to imply that within the experiment the closed system was not really a closed system. We may also posit that the closed system was actually of greater dimension than the artificial closed system of the experiment. That is, the experimenter’s system is merely part of the artificial system of the experiment. In this circumstance the experimental closed system was only part of the greater “seemingly” closed system of our existence. This then indicates that we may only “appear” to exist within a closed system, or that our closed system is greater than we conceive it to be! So something coming from without may only appear to come from without when it is actually within the system, just not perceived.

    If energy had not been imposed upon the closed system of the experiment than an amino acid would not have resulted, so how would the argument fall apart? One must admit that the Laws of Physics allow for the generation of an electrical stimulus within our system, however within the experiment it was not spontaneously generated from within the closed system. My intent was to demonstrate that the experimenter was the ID of the closed system and all the elements of the closed system were combined by the ID. This is similar to Plato’s concept of a chaotic substrate organized by mind into order. Without the experimenter there would be no experiment. The experimenter was the ID of the experiment and set up the conditions for the amino acid to be created. This argues more for ID than for random chance in my opinion.

  11. #41
    VI) Which again diverts attention away from the political motivations behind much of the movement.... But then, your argument ultimately gives way to proving whether or not there is a creator (God; let's not mince words here) by punching holes into your sample of defects in in evolutionary theory. I understand that you may not be part of the movement, but this is part of the debate.

    As I have previously stated this is not a political issue for me, but a search for Truth and although I have not mentioned it, an academic exercise as well. The political motivations of others do not concern me. Societies of man have existed for thousands of years following seemingly irrational premises of life. Who is to say any of the conclusions we posit today won't be laughed at in another 2,000 years. It is just a game!

    I am not attempting to punch holes in the theory of evolution. I am attempting to identify errors of reasoning; this is where my interests lay. I do not disagree necessarily with evolutionary theory only irrational methods of supporting it. The same could be said for a Godlike Deity. I am not against the concept per se, only the irrational arguments used to demonstrate ITS existence. I do argue against “random chance” as the sole cause of existence however. I find “random chance” requires a greater leap of faith than the concept of an ID.

    Special creation in seven days is implied in the Bible, but not definitely seen as specifically pertaining to seven 24 hours days by some. It all depends upon how one chooses to interpret the Bible.

    VII) True again, but you are arguing against evolution by bringing up an example of adaptation. We do however, have examples of speciation, tigers and lions for example, donkeys and horses. Not exactly a dog to a bird, but yours is a strawman argument because this is not what evolution argues is happening.

    Good point!! However, the theory that one came from another is still arrived at through inductive reasoning and therefore cannot be said to follow as a certainty! I will concede it is plausible, possible and even probable, but it is not certain. Remember I am not actually seeking to argue against evolution, just improper arguments that support it. In this circumstance I really only require the qualifier!

    VIII) True, but then you and I are not evoluntionary biologist. Somehow we think our opinions are well reasoned. Incidentally, why do people insist on interpreting data through a philosophical or religious prism? Scientists are biased enough interpreting their own data when they have their own little pet hypotheses.


    We each have our own preconceived manner of viewing the world. These worldviews color our perceptions and therefore the conclusions we accept as valid. It is part of life.

    As to questioning evolutionary biologists: all arguments follow the principles of reason. All one requires is the evidence and the reasoned argument one is using to defend the conclusion. If the argument is reasoned and is supported by true facts then we may assume the conclusion to represent a Truth. Once again since evolution is founded upon a series of inductive arguments and many of the arguments are supported by assumptive facts we cannot say with certainty that evolution is a fact, only plausible, possible and/or probable according to our most current understanding. (Notice my qualification. This is provided because I recognize that new understanding of the evidence is possible. Qualifications are not provided by most scientists because they assume themselves to have all the facts and to have a complete understanding of the facts. This has been proven to be an error in the past so I do not assume that for myself!!)

    IX) Again, if the creation of the itself doesn't require the addition of energy outside the system, of course I may be wrong in my understanding, then how do the three laws support ID?

    The third law of Physics demonstrates that our system has a natural, that is, inherent tendency to disorder. The, “ultimate state of inert uniformity” I mentioned previously. Since the system is moving towards disorder, a priori, the system was at one time more ordered than it is now. If the system was ordered against the natural tendency to disorder it implies a force, as yet unmeasured, that imposed order upon it. I consider this force to be an ID. Why? Well we know intelligence exists. We possess it. We know that intelligence has the desire and ability to create. We do it! Since we know intelligence exists and we know that intelligence creates order out of seemingly chaotic elements, it is not implausible to postulate an ID that did the same to our material universe.

    X) I think that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works... is there anyway to test the existance of a creator?

    All rational knowledge when reduced to its basic premises is founded upon unprovable assumptions. This makes the conclusions we arrive at only best guesses.

    At present I do not subscribe to the belief that God may be proven to a certainty through scientific or rational means. But when referencing my argument in the previous section I do believe we may infer ID to a “reasonable” certainty.

    First, when considering whether we may test for the existence of an ID we are really asking can an ID be measured. This is the purview of science, to measure the world. However, some things within our world are inherently un-measurable, yet we accept their existence. When I express a feeling or an experience it is a subjective experience that may be indicated, but not measured. To be sure the effects of experiences and feelings upon the body may be measured, but this is only the measurement of the effects and does not represent the actual experience. We may measure when an individual is having a dream using an EEG, but we are presently unable to measure or access the actual dream of the individual or experience the feelings of the individual as THEY experience them. These are considered REAL experiences, but they are inherently un-measurable. We may not know exactly what an individual is dreaming or experience their experience, but we may infer they are having a dream by observing the physical, measurable indications. As such we may infer an ID from its physically measurable indications. i.e. my conclusion using the 3rd law of thermodynamics. Some scientists posit that dreams are merely the interaction of chemicals within the brain, but the chemical interactions are not the dream they are physical responses. Further did the dream cause the chemical interactions or did the chemical interactions cause the dream. We don’t truly know! Just because we may stimulate a portion of the brain and access a feeling or a memory does not mean the memory or feelings is limited to that region. Also, what is it that experiences that memory or the feelings, it is the mind. Is the mind the brain? There is some research that indicates the mind is not dependent upon the physical brain.

    Second, I may measure the constituents indicating the taste of an orange, but the measurement is not the taste. The taste is a phenomenon that must be experienced by a mind. I cannot prove to you what an orange tastes like. Even if I describe the taste to you and provide you with the chemical analysis of the constituent compounds, even if I compare it to similar tastes such as a lemon or a lime, you have no real knowledge of the taste of an orange until you taste it for yourself. Your mind is the experiencer of the phenomena we call taste. This is then is the motivation of mystics, to obtain direct experience of the Divine. In this case the proof is in the pudding!! You know an orange has a specific taste because you have tasted it for yourself. Prior to that you may only rely on the authority of others and they may only indicate using in adequate metaphor that does not convey the actual experience only what it is like, i.e. “an orange sort of tastes like a tangerine, but different!”

    Thirdly, what is it that has experiences? We call it mind. We may at best say that mind is that which perceives while recognizing that this is merely a conventional description that does not actually provide a comprehensive definition. We cannot measure mind, but we accept its existence. We ascertain it exists by experiencing life. Life for humans is the interaction of mind on a physical universe, but it is also more. We have non-physical experiences called dreams and imagination. The laws of physics do not hold sway here, but the depth of the experience is not diminished because of this. How can we verify three dimensional activity and sensate experiences occur within the mind of another? We cannot unless we have experienced the same phenomena for ourselves. Our methods of measurement only exist according to the physical universe. If such experiences are merely physical at some point we will be able to see and actually experience the dreams and imagination of another using only physical means. When this occurs I will be required to re-think my conclusions, until we may posit that since mind exists for me it may also exist for an ID. Since I may imagine an ordered universe I may posit an ID that does the same!

    This has been very time consuming and I cannot guarantee any further responses if they require so much time to compose. However, Thank you for a reasoned, well thought out and invigorating post.

    Merry Christmas to you!!

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Orlando, Florida
    Posts
    1,994
    Greetings..

    Nicely crafted, Scott..

    I will try to explain my personal perspective, with no assertion of "truth" or reality for anyone but me.. My experiences lead me to combine perspectives.. that there is a "prime mover" or original mind.. that in its balanced and inert state it had no companionship and no input or interaction, and.. its only thought due to no comparative subjects, was "I AM".. keep in mind that in this state (place within eternal cycles) the "original mind" has no active memory, no prediction capability.. it exists only in its eternal "now".. but, as Scott points out, creativity is a signature of consciousness.. so, the original mind conceives a single thought, a single one word addition to its previous 2 word mantra.. "What Am I"?.. considering its lack of active memory and inability to predict, it is without prejudice (a fundamental "now" concept).. so, in order to discover "what" it is, it sets creation in motion.. no crafting of complex organisms or inter-related systems.. just a little push to get things started.. This is the only true way to reveal itsel to itself, set it in motion and observe its "evolution".. tinkering or manipulating based on lessons learned from observing the evolution would contradict the desire for "self discovery", it would interupt the natural evolution of consciousness..

    As consciousness evolves, it becomes self-aware and inquisitive.. it ponders its own nature and origin.. it attains some level of "originality".. and like the Yin/Yang symbol suggests, at its peak it begins its own decline.. not contented to exist in balance with nature, it seeks to understand and dominate, to exert "God-like" dominion over its environment.. thus the decline, the return to the inert balance and the beginning of another cycle.. each subsequent cycle retains an "inactive memory" of all cycles locked in a chaotic pattern of order.. each subsequent cycle modifies its experience without understanding the concealed mass memory.. and so the Original mind evolves also.. with each subsequent cycle pacing itself toward a universal "nirvana"..

    So, i sense that there is ID in the creation of the evolutionary process (big-bang?).. but, that the process is random and left to naturally find its own destiny.. other scenarios such as complex design contradict basic fundamental concepts relative to self-discovery and self-determination.. and, without self-determination the game is pointless.. pointless at every level..

    As Parts of the Whole (Original Mind), we are free to create our own experience as elements of the "Prime Mover's " own self-discovery.. in-so-much-as we are not yet so good at the game, we conjure all manner of ill-reasoned and contrary notions about our individual relationships to the Original Mind.. like: greed, dominance, love, hate, separate individuality, science and a plethora of deities.. we race past a balance of consciousness and nature toward a self-negating reunion with the Original Mind.. a self-indulgent aspiring to know it all.. we tend to be dis-satisfied with a simple physical experience and the occasional glimpse into the "Whole", a delightful taste of our original mind becomes a gluttonous feast where we indulge ourselves into the oblivious state of "inert balance", we perpetuate the cycles..

    I accept the notion of a superior consciousness, but.. i do not favor some trite cosmic adjudicator's aganda of law and order.. i see that as the providence of our own consciousnesses.. i sense that, as a species, we are moving beyond the healthy and self-sustaining balance between social awareness and natural process.. but, that is the nature of the game.. the eternal cosmic game of hide and seek, i hide and then try to find myself.. currently, i'm better at hiding than at finding..

    So, for what it's worth, there is my perception of "it".. Be Well....
    TaiChiBob.. "the teacher that is not also a student is neither"

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Posts
    6,190
    Bottom line:

    ID doesn't belong in a science classroom. You want to teach it in school, teach it in Philosophy. It's THAT SIMPLE.

    We don't have ANY natural evidence to indicate there is an intelligent designer. Even the argument most IDers/creationists like to revert to, "irreducible complexity can't be evolved," has now been shown to be incorrect. Computer "life" that evolves is quite capable of developing irreducibly complex functions through random mutation.

    What IDers/creationists do is try to use the whole PROCESS of science against itself by framing it as a concrete body of knowledge. It is not. Science is a process for uncovering information about the natural world. IDers/Creationists appeal to an "IDer or God of the Gaps," when science can't explain something.

    Well, folks, since science is an ongoing process wherein some explanations are discarded for better ones on the basis of observations and experiments about the natural (emphasis on natural) world, you cannot cite the fact that it doesn't explain everything that ever happened ever as an argument AGAINST science. That's exactly the point! We use science to figure out stuff about the world around us. We don't treat it as a concrete, definitive body of knowledge. Every door opened leads to others. It is nothing but a process of exploration, and we keep pushing the boundaries out.

    Supernatural entities need not apply (goodbye God) because science concerns itself with the observable, natural world. ID falls victim to Occam's Razor in that there is no defining necessity for ID in any complete theory. It secondly is non-falsifiable, since there will always be knowledge gaps that need filling - when one gap is filled, you just move ID along to the next gap that is created by our increased understanding of the universe. That's the "God of the Gaps" folks, and the irony is that it RELIES on our increasing scientific explorations to perpetuate itself. IDers just change whatever it is that ID is supposed to explain once we understand the previous knowledge gap and discover others. ID, therefore, doesn't actually explain anything. "ID explains what science can't (yet)" - That's no theory.

    By contrast, whatever faults one might find with scientific theories, they have staying power because they actually explain certain phenomena. They might not have the full solution or exactly the right answer, but that is why we tweak them from time to time, as technological innovations allow better measurements, conceptual understanding advances. The Newtonian Universe gave way to the Relativistic Universe and on the small scale, the quantum universe. I have no doubt that at some point, relativistic and quantum processes will be merged - and that will, in turn, open up more questions.

    Which I'm equally certain creationists and IDers will attribute to "something else," in the eternal god of the gap cycle.


    I don't have a problem with God or ID. I have a problem with teaching either in a science classroom. The cognitive leap from "We don't have a scientific explanation for that," to "there must be a Creator/IDer," is not a logical leap, it is a leap of faith. So keep it out of the science classroom.
    "In the world of martial arts, respect is often a given. In the real world, it must be earned."

    "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand. "--Bertrand Russell

    "Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends of every country save their own. "--Benjamin Disraeli

    "A conservative government is an organised hypocrisy."--Benjamin Disraeli

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Vancouver, B.C. Canada
    Posts
    2,140

    Smile Hi Scott,

    I would like to thank you for sharing such interesting view. I think you have done a wonderful job in reasoning for ID.

    In some ways, as a I have vast interest in the study of Yi Jing (classic of change), I applaud your arguement for Intelligent design. I personally believe Yi Jing qualifies as a a print or a form of ID although it doesn't necessarily involve a creator (ie Christian's notion of God) IMHO.

    As such I believe I see the point that we don't have to lump Creationism and Intellegent Design together. I think my problem with ID initial was that it is used by Monotheists as their arguement of existance of a God and subsquently policital posturing. BTW, I am not an atheist per se. I suppose I am more inclined to take the same stance as you for the quest of truth.

    I do find the "prime mover" as problematic since "prime" indicates an acceptance or acknowledgement of a singular linear experience of time. But as you pointed out in the example of dream, the mind or to certain degree the body may be experiencing a notion of time (ie historical time) or even incoherin notions of time simultaneously yet the mind-body continuum is at least in theory still experiencing universal/physical time.

    I do like your finally paragraph and find it supports the Qi experience (hope I did not open another can of worms or worm hole [pun intended] here).

    Warm regards

    Mantis108

    PS TCB thanks for sharing your interesting thoughts.
    Contraria Sunt Complementa

    對敵交手歌訣

    凡立勢不可站定。凡交手須是要走。千着萬着﹐走為上着﹐進為高着﹐閃賺騰挪為
    妙着。


    CCK TCPM in Yellowknife

    TJPM Forum

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    need to know, then ask?
    Posts
    67
    we will never know for sure, so why bother arguing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •