Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-22-2017 9:41 PM
372 online now:
DrJones*, edge (2 members, 370 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,871 Year: 16,477/21,208 Month: 2,366/3,593 Week: 479/882 Day: 100/97 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
7Next
Author Topic:   Is ID properly pursued?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18650
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 78 of 94 (689053)
01-27-2013 8:44 PM


bump for Spiritual Anarchist
Welcome to the fray Spiritual Anarchist

Message 1 of Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?

Are other viewpoints besides the Christian and the Atheist welcome or given consideration? Or is the debate of ID just a battle of Christian values versus Nihilism/Materialism?

Curiously, I don't think anyone has a copyright on ID.

Is the Intelligent Design Movement open to Pantheism or other view points beside Christianity?

I'm a Deist, and I care little whether the "Design Movement" is open to my views or not. Deism was around long before the Neo-Paley Christian version.

See Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... as well as this thread for my opinion of ID

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 79 of 94 (689065)
01-27-2013 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-16-2004 12:36 PM


Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
Sorry I didn't know how else to do this. This will probably be posted as message 79 and be overlooked anyway. But I think Pantheism opens up a whole new can of worms. And being a Pantheist I can see myself being questioned on both sides of the debate.

I am just trying to see if ID would be seen as compatible with Pantheism. And which side would have the most objections to this form of ID the Atheist or the Theist. So I am re-posting here only because I am new here and this thread already seems to have replies. I am kind of hoping that this will lead to more post on my original thread.
"Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?"

If I am doing this all wrong please do not be mad at me. Just delete this post and hopefully I will get answers to my questions anyway.

Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?

I would like to see a thread on here that will encourage more discussion on what the current proponents of Intelligent Design are open to. In other words many opponents rightly point out that most advocates of ID are Christian. And even further damning is the history of the ID movement being originated in Creationism.

It seems to me this whole debate is between Christians and Atheist on what is and isn't real science. I think the sticking point here is the word Design.

Design implies a total lack of creativity and to me is just as cold as Richard Dawkins summary of natural selection...

""Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."

When a Penn and Teller episode of BullSh* Penn ask Teller what is the Creationist response to Dawkins Teller hits him with a Bible.

The Intelligent Design movement claims to be different.But given the history of the Discovery Institute and the famous Wedge Document many are justifiably skeptical.

The truth is Design is cold to me anyway whether it is by a God with a predetermined outcome that ignores all the suffering involved until the end ...or simply nature selecting for survival traits.

I do not believe we live in a cold Godless Universe. But I have concluded instead that the Universe is alive and as more awareness manifest the Universe becomes more creative. The suffering in this process is attributed to the fact that to eliminate suffering that the Universe must become self reflective and aware of itself through us and other sentient beings.

Is the Intelligent Design Movement open to Pantheism or other view points beside Christianity?

I feel like I must choose a false Dichotomy in this debate between a meaningless Universe with no room for souls,freewill etc
or belief in some Tribal Deity of the Canaanites.

Are other viewpoints besides the Christian and the Atheist welcome or given consideration? Or is the debate of ID just a battle of Christian values versus Nihilism/Materialism?


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2004 12:36 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2013 1:39 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18650
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 80 of 94 (689143)
01-28-2013 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Spiritual Anarchist
01-27-2013 10:59 PM


Re: Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
Sorry I didn't know how else to do this. This will probably be posted as message 79 and be overlooked anyway. But I think Pantheism opens up a whole new can of worms. And being a Pantheist I can see myself being questioned on both sides of the debate.

We can discuss what we think ID should be like here and address the tolerance of others to an open ID philosophy on your thread.

You'll likely find less tolerance from those that want to attack it as creationism.

Is the Intelligent Design Movement open to Pantheism or other view points beside Christianity?

I feel like I must choose a false Dichotomy in this debate between a meaningless Universe with no room for souls,freewill etc
or belief in some Tribal Deity of the Canaanites.

Are other viewpoints besides the Christian and the Atheist welcome or given consideration? Or is the debate of ID just a battle of Christian values versus Nihilism/Materialism?

Based on what is claimed they should be open to anyone, because they claim it is not about any particular religion or god/s.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 01-27-2013 10:59 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 901 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 81 of 94 (737094)
09-17-2014 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-16-2004 12:36 PM


well done
RAZD,
Well thought out. Lucid. Comprehensive. I look forward to reading the rest of the thread. I hope you will entertain my questions and comments as I go along.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2004 12:36 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 09-17-2014 8:51 AM taiji2 has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18650
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 82 of 94 (737102)
09-17-2014 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by taiji2
09-17-2014 12:49 AM


Re: well done
Certainly. Thanks


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 12:49 AM taiji2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by taiji2, posted 09-26-2014 12:11 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 901 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 83 of 94 (737491)
09-26-2014 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by RAZD
09-17-2014 8:51 AM


Re: well done
RAZD,

After the fiasco of my previous thread, I am shifting here to present my thoughts.

My first suggestion is to drop the ID reference and substitute intelligent laws in its place. This unhooks discussion from the poisoned well of previous theological and political debate where ID has an established meaning that is problematic to the pursuit of truth. Use of the word design has been problematic as well, with no consensus of what design is or what it means.

Laws on the other hand is specific. There should be little ambiguity as to what is being spoken of when laws of nature/science are invoked. Laws of nature/science exist. The sciences are based on these laws. Proper pursuit of intelligent laws should seek to establish the source and chronology of these laws and determine whether the laws derive from an intelligent source or not.

The proper pursuit of Intelligent Laws should seek evidence of an intelligence, not a deity. There would be the simple question of determining whether the laws derived out of chaos or from an aware intelligence. Speculations to put a face on this intelligence would offer nothing to the discussion. Primal intelligence IS or IS NOT would be the only issue on the table.

Should Intelligent Laws ever be properly pursued and it be resolved likely that intelligence is primal, then of course the many competitors for putting a face on that intelligence can have at it. Jehovah, Allah, super-dimensional pin-ball players causing 3 dimensional event horizons on fourth dimensional black holes, etc.. Arguing those choices are moot unless it is first established that intelligence is or is not at the root of it all.

Proper pursuit of intelligent laws should begin at the beginning. Science should be utilized to establish a chronology for laws of nature/science. In other words, how old are the laws? Science should be utilized to establish whether the laws are eternal and unchanging. Are laws front-end fact or do laws evolve with a changing universe? Science should take these questions as far as they can be taken with observation and statistical inference.

This is an opening thought. A name change seems to be a necessity if anyone ever expects to take the discussion away from political intrigue and into serious pursuit of truth.


The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.

The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.

The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 09-17-2014 8:51 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Coyote, posted 09-26-2014 12:33 AM taiji2 has responded
 Message 85 by ringo, posted 09-26-2014 12:25 PM taiji2 has not yet responded
 Message 88 by Stile, posted 09-26-2014 2:54 PM taiji2 has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5859
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 84 of 94 (737492)
09-26-2014 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by taiji2
09-26-2014 12:11 AM


Some definitions
Here are a couple of definitions to consider in your discussions:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."

In science there is no such thing as "intelligent laws."

Rather, scientific theories seek to explain data, including the regularities we call laws.

Those theories begin as hypotheses, which are based on data. Hypotheses are subjected to testing. Successful hypotheses survive that testing, successfully explain the data, and make predictions which are confirmed. Eventually one hypothesis emerges as the best, and becomes a theory. A theory should explain all relevant data, not be contradicted by any data, and continue to make successful predictions.

Your idea to change the names makes sense. But "intelligent laws" does not seem to be a useful change. There would have to be a vast disconnect from data leading to generalizations (laws) to [some other kind of data] leading to [intelligent] laws.

Added: You use the term "truth" but that is not a term often used by science.

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source [my addition in brackets]

Edited by Coyote, : Addition


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by taiji2, posted 09-26-2014 12:11 AM taiji2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by taiji2, posted 09-26-2014 3:38 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13181
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 85 of 94 (737516)
09-26-2014 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by taiji2
09-26-2014 12:11 AM


Re: well done
taiji2 writes:

Proper pursuit of intelligent laws should seek to establish the source and chronology of these laws and determine whether the laws derive from an intelligent source or not.


As Coyote pointed out, scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. They have no source.

No intelligence decided what the shape of a puddle should be; the water just fits into the rest of the universe and happens to take on whatever shape is most convenient.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by taiji2, posted 09-26-2014 12:11 AM taiji2 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by NoNukes, posted 09-26-2014 2:05 PM ringo has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9648
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 86 of 94 (737529)
09-26-2014 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by ringo
09-26-2014 12:25 PM


Re: well done
As Coyote pointed out, scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. They have no source.

Yes, the laws are descriptive, but we might be able to do a little better at studying the origin of physical laws than your truth suggests. What I don't see how the doing would be helpful to ID.

For example, we might consider the origin of the universe by looking at the epochs during which the universe was dominated by various forms of matter/energy and during which the various forces (electromagnetic, electroweak, strong force) separated as the energy levels/density dropped via expansion. Certainly the gross 'properties' of the universe (loosely defined as how matter/energy/fields interacted) were all different during those eras. Of course that all happened in an unimaginatively small period of time.

The universe evolved even after all of that. For example at one time the universe was completely opaque to light. During an even longer era, the creation of stars was a complete impossibility, and for even longer than that, the creation of planets was impossible.

And of course the universe is still changing. At some point we may reach an epoch were it is impossible for any two particles to remain bound to each other via any of the known forces. Surely we might consider that to be an era where the physical laws are different than they are now. I don't see how that advances any search for intelligence. All indications are that the universe has acted pretty much the way it does now for the overwhelming portion of the 13.8 billion years of its existence.

Edited by NoNukes, : Add in some indication of time frame.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ringo, posted 09-26-2014 12:25 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 09-27-2014 12:02 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29008
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 87 of 94 (737536)
09-26-2014 2:41 PM


intelligent laws?
What the hell does the term "intelligent laws" even mean?

What would differentiate between an intelligent law and an unintelligent law?

Why would the idea be any less silly than the concept of intelligent design?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2896
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 88 of 94 (737540)
09-26-2014 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by taiji2
09-26-2014 12:11 AM


Re: well done
taiji2 writes:

The proper pursuit of Intelligent Laws should seek evidence of an intelligence, not a deity. There would be the simple question of determining whether the laws derived out of chaos or from an aware intelligence.

Fantastic.

The only problem is identifying whether or not a law is naturally derived or intelligently derived.
What are the defining characteristics of each?

Science should be utilized to establish a chronology for laws of nature/science. In other words, how old are the laws?

An interesting question for knowledge's sake, but I don't understand how this will help identify natural vs. intelligent.
Are really, really old laws intelligent, or natural?
Are young laws intelligent, or natural?
Why?

Are laws front-end fact or do laws evolve with a changing universe?

Again, interesting for knowledge's sake... but how does it help distinguish natural vs. intelligent?
Are constant-laws natural or intelligent?
Are evolving-laws natural or intelligent?
Why?

Science should take these questions as far as they can be taken with observation and statistical inference.

I could be mistaken as I do not work in such fields... but I believe science is already monitoring such things for any detectable variance... for the sake of just knowing what happened and what is.

This is an opening thought.

And it's very good. Best ideas I've heard for identifying intelligence or not. It just needs some specifics and to be fluffed out a bit more.
If you can get to the bottom of the two big "why" questions above... you'll be miles ahead of any other intelligence discovery mission.

My thoughts:

If there is an intelligence behind things, the laws of the universe should reflect some sort of conscious effort towards a goal... some sort of caring for something. Possibly (but not necessarily) humans or life as a whole. Possibly some aspect of the universe we haven't even discovered yet.

However, if the laws of the universe reflect an unfeeling, unrelenting, unguided march to nothing... it would seem to me that this would lean towards being evidence that they are natural and were not created by an intelligence.

What do you think?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by taiji2, posted 09-26-2014 12:11 AM taiji2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by taiji2, posted 09-26-2014 3:46 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply
 Message 92 by taiji2, posted 09-28-2014 10:08 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
taiji2
Member (Idle past 901 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 89 of 94 (737542)
09-26-2014 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Coyote
09-26-2014 12:33 AM


Re: Some definitions
Thank you Coyote.

I do not disagree with what you say. I threw out intelligent laws (as an alternative to ID) with reference to laws of science as a preliminary attempt to establish terms within which conversation could be taken forward without objection over semantics. I had thought that perhaps laws would not be objectionable given their wide acceptance by science. I obviously was wrong.

I personally would be happy with any designation which raises the question of whether front-end intelligence could be involved in the emergence of nature. As RAZD has stated, and I agree, answers to what is the proper pursuit of ???? cannot go forward without science. That given, the terms to be used while doing the science must not be objectionable to scientists.

I would therefore suggest that RAZD get a consensus of what would be an appropriate descriptor which would not offend and alienate scientists invited to the discussion.


The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.

The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.

The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Coyote, posted 09-26-2014 12:33 AM Coyote has not yet responded

    
taiji2
Member (Idle past 901 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


(1)
Message 90 of 94 (737544)
09-26-2014 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Stile
09-26-2014 2:54 PM


Re: well done
Stile,
Thank you.

Your quesions give me much food for thought and cannot be answered quickly.

I will take the time and give that thought. This reply is to just let you know that your questions are received and I am working on it.


The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.

The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.

The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Stile, posted 09-26-2014 2:54 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13181
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 91 of 94 (737590)
09-27-2014 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by NoNukes
09-26-2014 2:05 PM


Re: well done
NoNukes writes:

The universe evolved....


Yes, the "laws" have changed.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by NoNukes, posted 09-26-2014 2:05 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 901 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 92 of 94 (737673)
09-28-2014 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Stile
09-26-2014 2:54 PM


taiji2 writes:

The proper pursuit of Intelligent Laws should seek evidence of an intelligence, not a deity. There would be the simple question of determining whether the laws derived out of chaos or from an aware intelligence.


Stile writes:

Fantastic.

The only problem is identifying whether or not a law is naturally derived or intelligently derived.
What are the defining characteristics of each?

Even though I said it was a simple question, I did not say it was a simple answer. I cannot jump to any conclusions as I am certainly not a scientist nor am I a philosopher. I am, however, an avid reader of both and think myself capable of honest curiosity along the way. Rational thought should not be presumed contained only within the confines of any profession.

I think you indeed see the one problem intelligent pursuit of ????? should attempt to solve. I believe it can neither be solved alone by science nor by philosophy. Perhaps the ideal would be analogous to Plato's concept of the perfect ruler, the philosopher king. In this pursuit, the ideal participants might be the philosopher scientists.


The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.

The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.

The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Stile, posted 09-26-2014 2:54 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Pressie, posted 09-29-2014 5:52 AM taiji2 has not yet responded
 Message 94 by Larni, posted 09-29-2014 6:39 AM taiji2 has not yet responded

    
Prev12345
6
7Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017