Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Help me understand Intelligent Design (part 2)
Ragged
Member (Idle past 3552 days)
Posts: 47
From: Purgatory
Joined: 10-26-2005


Message 22 of 173 (260636)
11-17-2005 3:54 PM


Back on topic.
From what I have read it seems that ID is a combination of Evolution and Creation. God (Intelligent being) did not actually create earth, animals and people in 7 days. God did come up with evolution to do the same thing in 100mln years, instead. There are a lot of constrains and limitations and uncertainties, but a no evidence to prove or disprove it.
Can someone please explain what ID actually postulates? Several people, talked about ID and its implications without ever mentioning the actual theory. Or was I supposed to know about ID before clicking on this thread? Thanks.

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by PurpleYouko, posted 11-18-2005 9:04 AM Ragged has replied

  
Ragged
Member (Idle past 3552 days)
Posts: 47
From: Purgatory
Joined: 10-26-2005


Message 26 of 173 (260957)
11-18-2005 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by PurpleYouko
11-18-2005 9:04 AM


Re: Back on topic.
PurpleYouko writes:
I seriously doubt that anyone will ever be able to tell you exactly what ID postulates because nobody knows. That is the heart of the problem. There is no difined postulation for ID. Every ID proponent you talk to has their own unique ideas about it and most of them directly contradict each other.
LMAO. So its either you support:
a) Creation
b) Evolution
c) Other (AKA ID)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by PurpleYouko, posted 11-18-2005 9:04 AM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PurpleYouko, posted 11-18-2005 1:24 PM Ragged has not replied
 Message 28 by robinrohan, posted 11-18-2005 1:26 PM Ragged has replied

  
Ragged
Member (Idle past 3552 days)
Posts: 47
From: Purgatory
Joined: 10-26-2005


Message 36 of 173 (263067)
11-25-2005 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by robinrohan
11-18-2005 1:26 PM


Re: Back on topic.
I was under the impression that the basic beleif of ID is that life forms are so subtly designed and so exquisite that they could not have evolved by random mutations but had to be the work of some God-like creature or even God.
Ok, that about answers my question.
Prophex is correct in saying that ID is a religion. In my oppinion all science is religion and all religion is science. Both religion and science try to explain why a certain thing heppened, and both require some degree of faith. For example, a person dies. Religious people would say that it was his/her time on this Earth, and God took him/her up to heavan. Doctors would say that the person died because a virus killed him/her. "IDists" would say that it was the person's time on this Earth, and God took him/her up to heavan, using a virus to to destroy his/her material body. All of the above beliefs require faith. Obviously faith is an intergral part of religion, so it needs no explanation. Science also need faith since we don't know for sure if it was a particular virus that killed that person. It could have been poison that was undetected by autopsy, it could have been some wierd desease, or somehting really freaky that we don't even know about yet. But we chose to believe in that it was a virus. And since ID is a combination of the two, it requires faith for both aspect - religion and science. And that was just this one thing, imagine how much faith it takes to believe in ID when we are talking about something so important, complex, and apstract as the origins of human race.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by robinrohan, posted 11-18-2005 1:26 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by ringo, posted 11-25-2005 1:46 PM Ragged has replied

  
Ragged
Member (Idle past 3552 days)
Posts: 47
From: Purgatory
Joined: 10-26-2005


Message 38 of 173 (263155)
11-25-2005 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by ringo
11-25-2005 1:46 PM


Faith is the evidence of things not seen, but science deals only with things that are "seen" - i.e. observable.
Not entirely true. For example, we can not observe an electron. We can only assume that it is somewhere aruond the nucleas of an atom. We call that area an electron field. Heisenburg's Uncertanty principle directly states that we can not observe an electron and measure its velocity and position at he same time.
Most of our modern cosmology is based on abstract concepts like Dark Energy, quintessence etc. The size and shape of the universe can not be explained in any concrete terms, much less proven. The entire branch of quantum physics has been established on nothing more then theories and a series of theoretical experiments, EPR paradox being the most famous one.
We do know why water feezes at 0 C, because we can observe the behavior of molecules that make up water. But we do not know what is happening within the protons and electrons that make up those molecules. Maybe there is some underlying reason why water changes state at that tempreture that we simply haven't discovered, yet.
Aristotel believed that a moving object tends to stop because the natural state of an object is to be at rest. Oops, he didn't know about inertia and about friction. That misconception threw off all scientists for many centuries, because they put faith into Aristotel's theory. 1000 years ago we knew that Earth was at the center of the universe. Imagine what we will "know" in 10, 20 ,50 years. To me, science is just misplacing of our faith from one misconception to the next, as we learn how much more we still dont know.
That isn't faith, it's probability. Science doesn't deal in absolutes. The autopsy will determine that the greatest probability is that a virus caused the death.
Just like alot of people accept that there probably is God, because it makes sense, or because it comforts them. Observations of the outside world coupled with our own experiences and our reflexions on both (autopsy of life) produce the greatest probability of existance of God. It still takes faith to actually accept God's existance. Just like it takes faith in the virus being the cause of death, for people to write "Virus" on the death certificate under "Cause of death", even though we are not completely sure.
Well, no. There is nothing scientific about ID. It doesn't propose mechanisms for how things happen. It is just an argument from ignorance: "We haven't figured out how (fill in the blank) works, so a supernatural 'designer' must have done it."
I agree on that ID is trying to sit on two chairs at the same time, by doing so almost ensuring that they will be atleast party correct. Bu it doesn't make them wrong.
From my understanding of it ID doesn't deny any of the scietific theories including the Big Bang and Evolution. It is also not saying "Let's not try to find out more about the origins of life, because it was a work of a higher Intellegence, so there is not point in trying to understand it." Being religious doesn't automatically mean that you should deny all the science and only rely on God. By the same token, being a scientist doesn't necceserally make you an aethiest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by ringo, posted 11-25-2005 1:46 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by ringo, posted 11-25-2005 11:55 PM Ragged has replied
 Message 47 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2005 9:17 AM Ragged has not replied

  
Ragged
Member (Idle past 3552 days)
Posts: 47
From: Purgatory
Joined: 10-26-2005


Message 41 of 173 (263175)
11-26-2005 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by ringo
11-25-2005 11:55 PM


Science is not about "proof". It's about finding the best possible explanation for the evidence.
Words "best" and "possible" are highly subjective. A person dies. For a doctor the most possible explanation is that a virus killed him, because that person was old, and his immune system was malfunctioning. For a Christian Practitoiner the best explanation is that God made a conscious decision to take that persons life, because of so and so reasons.
It is possible to put faith in geocentrism, etc. but that faith is not science. It was science that overthrew those misplaced faiths.
Think about all the things that we "know" now, that are going to be flasified in the near future. Will they then also sieze to be science and become misplaced faiths?
Second, anybody who put "faith" in that notion was not a scientist - because science does not work on faith. If they had been scientists, they would have tested the hypothesis and falsified it.
Were there no scientists before Copernicus? That must mean that the day we discover something new or disprove some theory that is being accepted today, all the modern scientist will become nothing more than people, who misplaced their faith.
And a thing about something being observable. Quantum physics, which you already approved to being observable, theorizes that every quanta in the universe knows the exact position, velocity, and the lifetime of every other quanta in the universe. Ergo, self conscious universe. That theory dovetails nicely with Spinozoan view of the world. He postulated that God is universe and that we are merely "ripple's on God's body." Alot of religions in this world believe in God being omnipresent and omniscient. Again those believes are supported by the latest studies of quanta.
Alot of religions observe God's presence when they look at nature. Take transendentalists for example, they wanted men to connect and listen to nature, for they believed that nature was God's direct manifistation. Some would say that evidence of God's existance could be found by simply looking upon ones life etc. There are alot of ways in which God could be observable, it just depends on who you ask.
That's pretty much exactly what ID is saying: "Since we can't conceive of life arising by naturalistic means, it must have been "designed" by a higher intelligence." That automatically shuts down any possibility of us ever figuring out how it happened.
I dont see how it shuts down the possobility of figuring it out. Big Bang does not try to explain who created the universe or who caused the Bang to occure. It simply tries to discribe the behiavior of the universe right after its creation. Same with evolution. Its not about "who", but about "how". Looking at it that way should keep everyone happy except for Creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by ringo, posted 11-25-2005 11:55 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Nighttrain, posted 11-26-2005 2:25 AM Ragged has not replied
 Message 43 by ringo, posted 11-26-2005 2:49 AM Ragged has not replied
 Message 44 by Nuggin, posted 11-26-2005 2:50 AM Ragged has not replied
 Message 46 by U can call me Cookie, posted 11-26-2005 7:00 AM Ragged has not replied

  
Ragged
Member (Idle past 3552 days)
Posts: 47
From: Purgatory
Joined: 10-26-2005


Message 60 of 173 (263783)
11-28-2005 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by RAZD
11-27-2005 4:26 PM


you of course realize that your position is fully exemplified by ragged's responses -- he is not looking for explanations further than god-did-it, and they are enough for him.
No no no no. That is not what I'm saying at all. You have completely misread my posts.
Being religious doesn't automatically mean that you should deny all the science and only rely on God. By the same token, being a scientist doesn't necceserally make you an aethiest.
This is my stence on that. ^^^
So Christians shouldn't take medicine? Shouldn't go to doctors? Only a very very small minority actually follows those rules.
That's becuase most people are in the middle of the spectrum. Naturally few are on extreme ends.
Sam: How'd this rock get here?
Bob: Um... a big flood?
Sam: Maybe it just fell off that cliff over there.
Bob: Sorry, too late, I already said flood.
Sam: Yeah, but, aren't there rocks just like this up on the cliff.
Bob: Man, sorry Sam, but I'm going to have to stone you to death for saying that.
Question: How did we end up with Sea Otters?
Answer: God did it.
Question: How?
Answer: With God Power.
Question: Can you explain that better?
Answer: Nope, why would we even bother to.
That is simply ignorant, I doubte that most IDists are that way.
When Spinoza used the word "God" he was not referring to an intelligent entity. He used the word as being synonymous with nature, with reality, with existance. he, explicitly stated that it had no personality.
Well if you are familiar with Spinoza's theories, you know that there are two parts to what he called "God". Nature Created, which is manifested in things that we can see and feel- Nature. And Nature Creating, the being that made the nature the way it is - God.
Im qouting myself from another forum:
He says that not only is God omnipresent, omnipitent, and omniscinet, but that Universe is God. Everything that we percieve as existing is actually God. In his Treaties, God is eternal, he has always existed and will always exist. Things that we percieve as finit are simply changing state not coming to an end. Drawing from that. Since we are an inseperable part of the universe we are a part of God. Spinoza describes us as merely "ripples on God's body." Since we are intergral part of God it also means that God completly controls our lifes. It deprives us of any kind of choice whatsoever. Everything that we do is actually God doing it, but we simply happen to be a vehicle of his actions. Like me typing this post, and you reding it, God is me and He is you. Talk about a dual personality complex So, we have no ability to make a chioce. In my oppinion it isn't as bad as it sounds. We do not have any power to make a desicion, but we think that we do and that illusion is enough to keep us happy. According to Spinoza the only actual choice that we can make is to realize that we don't have a choice and that without God we would not exist. Spinoza also states that God is perfect. Infaulable. God has a perfect plan which he can not deviate from. If we agree that there is only one way to achieve perfection, then it would mean that God himself can not make a desicion. God can not creat something which should have been created before, he can not fix anything since nothing can ever be broken, that means that it is pointless to call out to God and ask him to improve your life, because if yout life is dovetails with the perfect plan, and therefor can not be changed, because any change would ruin the perfection. Spinoza's God does not offer much consolation, except for the fact that we are all a part of God. The reason I told you about Spinozian views is because they appear to have alot more in common with our modern cosmology then any other religion out there.
Yes in a way it is like Atheism, or even Deism, since worshipping God is pointless.
Quantum physics, which you already approved to being observable, theorizes that every quanta in the universe knows the exact position, velocity, and the lifetime of every other quanta in the universe.
This is simply false. I don't know where this idea comes from.
Ok, it might have been a bit of an overkill. Maybe they don't know everything about each other, but
We can safely assume that all quanta in the Universe have interacted with each other at some point in time and that innumerable connections are formed.
Quantum physics is the only theoretical bridge at the moment between religion and science.
More and more physicists are proposing the idea that the Universe might be conscious.
The Conscious Universe could explain many phenomena which are regarded as mysticism.
There is now even a movie playing in cinemas about philosophical implications
of quantum physics What the BLEEP do we know.
I like the way Mr.Bodhi explains it.
I'll respond to the rest of it a bit later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2005 4:26 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2005 7:37 PM Ragged has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024