Intelligent Design == Human Design?

quote:

---

You are assuming, most likely unwittingly, that time and gravity continue acting as they do right down to T=0.

---

No I'm not. I'm recognizing T=0 is a real point in time. where time becomes irrelevant.You know my argument by now. why splatter gooble gobble to avoid the truth that t=0 is inevitable? I'm NOT arguing what the math explains of the conditions at the times just past T=0. I'm recognizing where our universe had to start from.Even IF our universe is within 20 other universe's and dimensions, T=0 will always be inevitable in an evolved state. Because: as long as two things "are" in an evolved state, Before that is a relevant question. another words: there was a start.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths.

---

It is absolute that i exist.

quote:

---

From a CalTech website.

---

I would suggest a psychiatric evaluation of Caltech.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

No it's not.

---

---

I'd really like to leave it at that. You've not earned even that much of a response.

---

---

I'm going to back up a bit. The topic of this thread is, I believe, meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. Fiver makes the argument that all designed things are designed by humans; The Universe looks designed; therefore, humans designed the Universe. I'd go along with him that if one isn't going to dismiss the argument "The Universe looks designed; therefore, the Universe is designed." then this argument is not sufficiently ridiculous to be dismissed either.Then tesla gets it into his head that it's important to examine the implication of T=0. I was hoping that I could head it off just a bit and turn it into a "The reasons you have for holding to this idea are invalid, so the idea becomes moot. The same is true also for the "ID looks designed" idea."I didn't even slow him down.Sorry for entertaining him and dragging the thread so far off course.

---

---

Hey, but in for a penny in for a pound, right?Let me just come back to this bit.

quote:

---

" Einstein’s theory of special relativity changed all that. From it we learned that the universe had a beginning. That beginning includes not only matter and energy, but space and time as well. This obviously presents a problem cooperating with the first law of thermodynamics. The universe could not suddenly exist where nothing had existed before at least not by natural means. This truth was so apparent to Einstein that he inserted a fudge factor into his theory to force the equations to reinstate the eternal universe.

​

Edwin Hubble discovered that the galaxies were moving away from each other. The more distant the object the faster it was moving away. This indicated the universe was expanding. It took some effort on Hubble's part but Einstein became convinced of this evidence and removed the fudge factor from his theory. The result was the sobering conclusion that moving backward in time we eventually come to a point where time equals zero. At the moment T=0, matter and energy become compressed into zero dimensional space. Don't misunderstand that to mean a tiny speck floating in empty space. In fact space itself becomes infinitely small. "

​

-Quote from another science dude.

---

I didn't bother to google this. Quite frankly, I was a bit fed up with tesla having nothing to say and saying it anyway. And I was wishing I hadn't gotten my self caught up in it in the first place and looking to bail. I'm glad Otto Tellick love the monicker, BTW googled it.The reason I find it interesting is that when I read it I saw this: Clearly nonsense: Einstein did not insert a fudge factor because the Universe could not suddenly exist where nothing had existed before. But what I came to realize was that I would have given it a slide because it was a "Quote from another science dude". Why would I take such a weak credential as valid. Yeah, yeah, off topic bosh, why bother. But that wasn't it.Be it know, I am a self confessed science groupie.I learned that. This place is not a waste of time.Thanks, Otto.Edited by lyx2no, : Credential.

---

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

Teaching and Learning STEMYou say a whole lot, without saying anything pertinent. That is a tactic of politics and sophistry.

quote:

---

t=0 is inevitable

​

No it's not.

---

You love to ignore science apparently. Did you read the link above? Does it help?I'll explain it.T=0 is similar to the analogy about the ground. we know the ground is there. The math doesn't. T=0 is the start. We know the start is there. The math cannot explain it, But its There. Its the tangible evidence we have that lets us know when the math is telling the truth. The math used to show our most accepted theory the BBT, is based on observations of our universe. Real, tangible evidence. It is the real observations the math agrees with, and observation agrees with.That's why good scientists will not stray far from the BBT. The math is backed up by what we actually see. And so reliably so, you'll have a hard time telling any physicist to ignore what that math Say's.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Well, this topic has certainly run wildly off course. Oh well, still enjoying the trip...

quote:

---

This shows in several ways why I consider Intelligent Design to be lacking in the basic requirements of a scientific hypothesis. Thoughts?

---

This was your final statement in your opening post.Intelligent design proposal's simply say " The universe was created and designed by an intelligence".Its not Science like say, cosmology. or anthropology. It is not a whole new science. It's a proposal to accept the variable of intelligence and a creator. Instead of random actions from a undefined start with many teaching that it was a random consequence of dumb luck interactions.My argument is to show why the variable of God created is valid to teach as a variable when dealing with the beginning of all things.A question Ive often asked is: What would this change in science as a whole? or, What difference does it make to science?And without a good outcome, my efforts would be abandoned.I believe that the changes made to science as a whole would be this:the question WHY, or, For what purpose? should be added to the scientific method for any scientist who accepts ID.If scientists wish to attempt further proof based on the definition of God in ID, they would be able to get funding to do so. And what experiments? Experiments to attempt to discover the connection between emotions and thoughts, and the physical world. If There is a way to communicate to the defined "God", Experiments to discover and research a "how can we communicate with God" on scientific terms. Where does religion fit with God? what religions seem to fit the scientific definition, if any?Stuff like that. Who knows. but it would also let God believing scientists breathe without feeling like they are going against their religion to follow science if they feel science has an anti God position.Mostly i continue my argument because its what the data of science Say's is there by the laws and observations science has called definite. So..if that's what it says, and that's what we see, then just like gravity it should be accepted.I cant figure out personally why science is so against accepting what their science shows. i mean c'mon.chaos theory for sub atomic particles? that's worse than godidit. why didn't the scientist just say : hell, i dunno why sub-atomic particles are so unpredictable, i guess were missing a variable or something. nooooo. too easy. they have to dream up chaos theory that teaches ordered structures are based on chaotic completely absent of order particles that could just fly apart or turn green and 10 feet tall at any random rare moment. At the same time as saying : oh well we don't really mean "chaos" when we say chaos what we really mean is " apparently chaos". well duh...I'm uh..duh i dunno but uh..everyone else is reading CHAOS! >At any rate, to answer your initial post; ID is a variable and not a completely new science. IMO.To answer your last comment: i have attempted to remain true to answering and debating the reasons i feel ID is valid in science. most scientists already accept ID anyways. so. ah well. Thanks for such a wonderful topic to debate =)Edited by tesla, : half my post didnt post? odd..Edited by tesla, : ingle teperiEdited by tesla, : final comment.Edited by tesla, : arg. Time for bed. niterz

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

ID is actually a religious belief seeking to masquerade as science.Look at it's history. What we know as ID was formulated in the late 1980s after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. That decision found that creation "science" was actually religion in disguise, and banned it from public schools.Something had to be found to try to continue the charade, and so ID was concocted. Look what it did to the Pandas book--as was shown in the Dover trial. They did a massive cut and paste replacing "creationists" with "design proponents" and got the classic cdesign proponentsists -- which they will never live down. It gave the whole sorry scheme away in such a dramatic fashion that ID simply can't try to hide its origins.Further, ID is anti-science: it does not use the scientific method to arrive at it's conclusions. It uses scripture, dogma, divine revelation, etc. Don't believe it? Have you ever seen ID come up with a conclusion that goes against scripture, dogma, and divine revelation? That would defeat it's entire purpose!Another point: ID starts with a conclusion and seeks evidence to support it, ignoring or distorting any evidence to the contrary. This also was brought out at the Dover trial -- under cross examination Behe showed he was doing religion, not science.No, ID is not a science. It is the most recent iteration in the creationism, creation "science,' ID progression. As it is failing, surely the religious apologists will come up with something to replace it.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

However, there is no unambiguous evidence favoring this proposal. The proponents of ID claim that it is science, and that it should be taught in the science curriculum. This would have the effect of putting worthless pseudo-science in the curriculum, and would tend to confuse students as to the nature of science.

quote:

---

Its not Science like say, cosmology. or anthropology. It is not a whole new science. It's a proposal to accept the variable of intelligence and a creator. Instead of random actions from a undefined start with many teaching that it was a random consequence of dumb luck interactions.

---

Well, that's certainly fine as a philosophy. In this sense I have no problem setting Intelligent Design firmly next to Postmodern Existentialism and Nihilism as interesting mind games, but subjects which simply have no foundation in objective science (and should definitely not be taught in public schools).

quote:

---

the question WHY, or, For what purpose? should be added to the scientific method for any scientist who accepts ID.

---

But again, this is philosophy, and not science. Science isn't meant to answer the "why" in the philosophical sense, but rather the "why" in the practical sense. By your definition, the "why" behind science could just as easily be addressed by mixing in any other philosophy with science. Of course, this is a bad idea...

quote:

---

Stuff like that. Who knows. but it would also let God believing scientists breathe without feeling like they are going against their religion to follow science if they feel science has an anti God position.

---

Science has an anti-supernatural, anti-faith position, and nothing more. Science doesn't promote atheism, agnosticism, or any other religious philosophy. Science is simply an approach.Here's an excellent question to illustrate this point. There are two ways to believe in something: by evidence or by faith. Which type of belief do you think God prefers?

quote:

---

i have attempted to remain true to answering and debating the reasons i feel ID is valid in science. most scientists already accept ID anyways.

---

Now you are on dangerous ground... most scientists believe in God, yes, but the vast majority of scientists specifically reject Intelligent Design as pseudoscience. The vast majority of scientific establishments in the U.S. have released statements specifically condemning Intelligent Design as unscientific, and you yourself have clearly spelled out in your response that Intelligent Design is not science.The key point here is that "Intelligent Design" doesn't mean "belief in a Creator", but rather "the argument that there is scientific and objective evidence to support the hypothesis of life on earth being created by an intelligent designer". This is not science. It's philosophy and religion.

Are you talking about experiments to test telepathy and the efficacy of prayer? Things like that have been done, and the results indicate nothing better than random performance (it might work every now and then, but in general it doesn't work). You won't even get the Discovery Institute or the Institute for Creation Research (or whatever they call themselves now) to fund that kind of stuff, because spending money on experiments that fail is less effective for their purposes than propaganda and lobbying.Even if you're talking about something else, the hard part is obviously going to be coming up with some concept that is both "God" and "defined". This really can't be done in any sort of objective framework -- it's something intrinsic about the concept of "God", which by definition defies objectivity.(I considered responding to your other "suggestions", but apart from being utterly religious and non-scientific, they were just too senseless.)

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

quote:

---

But again, this is philosophy, and not science. Science isn't meant to answer the "why" in the philosophical sense, but rather the "why" in the practical sense. By your definition, the "why" behind science could just as easily be addressed by mixing in any other philosophy with science. Of course, this is a bad idea...

---

I never said that. The evidence ive offered is empirical data.

quote:

---

Science has an anti-supernatural, anti-faith position, and nothing more. Science doesn't promote atheism, agnosticism, or any other religious philosophy. Science is simply an approach.

---

Science is not going to progress without addressing issues of thought , emotion and other things that DO exist. It has to be understood how the "spirit/supernatural" Ties in and can be measured.Ive said many times and youve read where i have said "supernatural is only the difference between what you do understand, and what you do not. things are only supernatural because you fail to understand it. but its all natural. you just do not understand.Thats the work of science : to understand.

quote:

---

Now you are on dangerous ground... most scientists believe in God, yes, but the vast majority of scientists specifically reject Intelligent Design as pseudoscience.

---

Then lets take the evident fact that we exist inside of an energy that evolved from a singularity and had nothing to interact with but itself to evolve. a constant singular source cannot evolve without intelligence. there is no other variable possible.lets take that FACT and introduce it to science another way. But lets not ignore the truth of what our own senses and reliable data say.It tells us: no area is absent of energy.Why? if an area is absent of energy it does not exist. it will never be measured, there is nothing there. No area is absent of the forces of light, gravity, or radiation and other forces. The area in space the vacuum considered the least point of energy : it has been said that the energy in one cubic meter of space could boil the earths oceans.it tells us: T=0 is the starting point of our expanding universe. and all that is has evolved from a singular point. this discovery was made useing the most reliable math in physics that expalin our heavens so well we landed a man on the moon.if Our science says Gods there, why ignore it? call it the "God factor" call it whatever you want, but don't ignore it.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

The proponents of ID claim that it is science, and that it should be taught in the science curriculum. This would have the effect of putting worthless pseudo-science in the curriculum, and would tend to confuse students as to the nature of science.

---

It seems even scientists are confused as to the nature of science.The evidence supports God is. It's empirical data backed up by reliable math and laws. If no one likes ID, then call it a variable or another name. but don't ignore it.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

Are you talking about experiments to test telepathy and the efficacy of prayer? Things like that have been done, and the results indicate nothing better than random performance (it might work every now and then, but in general it doesn't work). You won't even get the Discovery Institute or the Institute for Creation Research (or whatever they call themselves now) to fund that kind of stuff, because spending money on experiments that fail is less effective for their purposes than propaganda and lobbying.

---

No. Scientology and the like institutions do that.I'm not sure what will be done when the truth of the data is accepted. i just see the data and know it should be accepted. you accepted gravity.I'm not sure what will come of it, but i know it will progress science. because its the truth by all data. if science ignores its own findings, how can it progress?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

Another point: ID starts with a conclusion and seeks evidence to support it, ignoring or distorting any evidence to the contrary. This also was brought out at the Dover trial -- under cross examination Behe showed he was doing religion, not science.

---

The dover trial was a farce. scientists tried to prove God without the proper evidenceThe judge was ignorant and the scientists unprepared with there arguments because they KNEW they didn't have the proper data and were appealing to the logic that something as intricate as life and matter doesn't make sense to just poof from nothing and evolve.BUT: I'M showing you data that is backed up by YOUR science. and your ignoring it. do you think a judge who was NOT ignorant, yet was open minded enough to examine my data would be so quick to ignore it?ID then..lets say its bad science. but what Ive offered is true science. definite science by laws of science and empirical data. It is outright STUPID to ignore that data.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Energy does not "evolve". We do not exist "inside" of energy. Energy does not "interact". What is "a constant singular source"? The singularity of Big Bang comsology is not constant - it exists at a single point in space-time. This is just a mixture of trivial facts and bizarre claims - is it supposed to demonstrate something? We certainly won't ignore it. But there is NOTHING in science that says a "god" is there, whatever this "god" is.