Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ?

--Bottom ID line: Intelligently 'Created'-->'Cursed'-->'Redeemed'Can any geniuses or non-geniuses here propose a higher intelligence factor that does not violate this nature of the cosmic ID. Albeit, many of you reject the hypothesis outright.--Obviously, for design to be benign and of maximum intelligence, GLORIOUS IMMORTALITY would have to be factored in. That this may or may not be suggested by natural observation(s) alone (scientific deduction) remains somewhat a matter of parsimony and/or faith biases. Most men ascent to the hypothesis a ‘glorious immortality’ as suggested by the data.For example, men presently expect to see infinities existing within the good ole space-time continuum. Not all infinites are perceived as intelligent nor benign, many appear ominously cursed (i.e., the lifeless outer darkness), yet they are perceived nonetheless.Infinity of time is assumed in science (sans relativistic twists) parsimoniously. Time itself seems immortal.‘Glories’ are ‘objectively’ evident in ‘harmonies’, ‘symmetries’, ‘proportions’, and such excellencies on all cosmic levels. Then ‘subjective glories’ are parsimoniously evident: a ‘spouse’, a ‘child’, a ‘friend’, a ‘lover’, a ‘good’ meal, etc.‘Redemptive’ events are expectedly seen by all of us. If nothing else, a ‘smile’, a ‘healing’, a good rest, a burst of ‘fresh air’, and so forthAs such, glorious immortality may be theorized under a broad array of ‘appropriate’ faith-biases, i.e., the Christian ones. This would mean parsimonious factoring and ‘appropriately’ weighing such natural observations via scientific-conscience, not merely concluding the Mega-ToE (which unjustly negates all ‘redemptive’ observations as arbitrarily mutated).

--Jeff (and John). ‘Intelligence’ is a loaded word, meaning different things to all of us. ----To me it implies ‘metaphysical’ wisdom, (as the wisdom of natural things is passing). ---To others it may be, mere IQ (the ability to score high on tests?),
--the ability to ‘catch’ a ‘beautiful’ wife (sorry John, I used that word ‘beauty’, un-objectively),
--the ability to make excellent order out of chaos (oops, I did it again, John).
--the ability to be free from ‘sin’.
--etc.--I don’t feel like looking up the parsimonious term up in the dictionary.--I honestly ‘see’ that the creation ‘appears’ ‘intelligently’ ‘astonishing’ on all these levels, i.e.: Ka-Zillions intelligence-worth of Christs, Einsteins, Peace-Makers, Hugh Hefners, Devils, Johns, Brads, Philips, Jeffs, etc.--How ‘bout you-all? Where does the intelligence lapse?

quote:

---

Originally posted by compmage:
In otherwords you are tailoring your interpretation of 'intelligence' so that it will match your picture of god. Why do you do this? Is it because you have already descided that your god created the universe and now you are looking for a theory that you can interpret in such a way that it supports what you believe to be truth?

---

--Of course. Scientific inquiry involves hypotheses, gathering empirical data, testing, and looking for a theory c/w results.

quote:

---

Originally posted by compmage:
Slightly off topic. Be careful of the 'free of sin' part.

---

--What, some people don’t define intelligence as wisdom, to varying extents? Even Sir Huxley cited ‘avoiding sin’ (albeit, for Evo reasons).

quote:

---

Originally posted by compmage:
The god of the bible has murdered and has therefore sinned and would, by your definition of intelligence, not be a candidate for the post of creator.

---

--That you focused on the last arbitrary definition of intelligence I merely postulated seems apparent. The ID as murdering/sinning (in or out of the Bible) seems more a projection of bias. For, how can the thing that is formed complain to the one that formed it, saying, He has made thus and thus and then sinfully murdered them?’ On the other hand, consider the ‘mass-murders’ by Israelites that were left undone in Canaan after the Exodus? Had they been finished, the US and other countries probably would not be under Palestinian Terrorist attacks. Also, when the damned are resurrected (assuming the ‘ethical intelligence’ is valid) there should be infinite justice against sin, right? Any premature death(s) (or murder as you call them) by a just ID would LESSEN THE ETERNAL SEVERITY of hell-fire. This is smart and timely mercy to the wretched life-form/soul, no? Add that to the IQ.--Or let the God of the Bible speak on such logic/intelligence: Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
How can you lessen the eternal severity of hellfire? Forever minus fifty years is still forever. Any lessening would turn out to be an infinitely small fraction-- literally. Conscience soothing but hardly significant...

---

--(Note; this reply was to the elusive Compmage, albeit I heartily welcome anyone’s inquiry/debate)
--I should indeed clarify, John; my comments are mere speculation with regards to the Lord’s ‘extermination’ programs, mere speculation. I agree my speculation seems bigoted and/or judgmental. I’m sorry.
--But regarding hell-fire, I was speculating on the severity (intensity) of the heat/pain per second, not the temporal coordinates. E.g., Hitler: Hitler may merit more of a fiery-intensity of hell-fire for his unbelief/hate than say the local whoremonger. Assuming Hitler has already been in hell 55 years (or even a pre-lake-of-fire/hades-pit as some ‘dispensationalists’ would argue) would seem to have little to do with the qualitative intensity of the justice rendered and little to do with the infinity thereof, as well. This concurs, somewhat, with what you cited. Perhaps the unrepentant whoremonger will spend eternities in a less entropic ‘darkness’ than the Hitler-types; albeit, this is just a thought.
--The point is: An intelligent designer’s smart IQ would seem to have to factor in qualitative and/or quantitative judgment of all sin, and that in a just/smart manner.
--Incidentally, the IQ of the ID would have to be smart enough to provide an alternate course of judgment that forgives the incessant sinners (that you and I are) as well, namely the ‘Christ-crucified-for-sin’ judgment. Of course, the nature of the IQ of such an ID might be scientifically worked up by natural observations as we..

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 06-16-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Serious question, Phillip-- this is probably the single thing I most sincerely do not get about the creation/redemption model you defend.

​

Why? Why must an intelligent designer figure in sin, forgiveness, fairness, justice, etc? These things don't seem to be necessary to a universe. Leaving aside the question of whether such things are or are not in our world. Isn't it possible that a creator could create an amoral universe, or one where the good guys burn and the bad get to play footsie with angels? Intelligence and compassion don't seem inextricably entwined.

---

Several plausible responses come to mind, John.--Unfortunately, there are grave problems with the term ‘intelligent’, as you all have pointed out. ‘Intelligent’ was used as a ‘scientific’-appealing term, which is one perspective of cosmic and human reality.--Possibly, an ‘intelligent’ design is an oversimplified IQ-like term, albeit its use is common among creationists. Besides IQ (the ability to score quickly and well in language, math, etc.), ‘intelligence’ itself may indeed imply little else. As such, an ‘intelligent’ designer would not apparently require (1) ethics-morality, (2) emotions/affections, nor (3) powerful strength. Only an intelligent lawyer or judge would judge, forgive, etc. The strict evo/materialist might see intelligence as arbitrary in a Big-Bang/Big-Crunch oscillating model, i.e., as proposed by the extremist, (Stephen Hawkins), who bypasses entropy as well as a primary cause, somehow.--But, we seem to perhaps have one more serious problem than entropy and primary cause(s), while attempting to negate ‘intelligence’, itself. That problem is humans have extremely APPERCEPTIVE minds, let alone apperceptive ethics-morality, apperceptive emotions/affections, and apperceptive strength. (By apperceptive I mean ‘reflecting in consciousness’) It seems clear that our intelligence is abstractly multi-dimensional.--Dictionary.com seems to give a bunch of circular definitions based on reason, rationality, etc. One of its definitions, however, is: Showing sound judgment and rationality. So I might beg this definition, personally.--Now when a creationist appeals to science, he might infer ID, thus. He will not always say (1) Morally-Designed, (2) Emotionally-Designed, and/or (3) Powerfully-Designed, albeit he may believe these are true, too.--The problem with THIS universe is that it contains higher life-forms and humans that are (1) Morally-Designed (MD), (2) Emotionally-Designed (ED), and (3) Powerfully-Designed (PD) to varying extents. Humans also have the extremely apperceptive consciousness (mind), rendering these MD, ED, and PD extremely REAL, don’t you think?Other universes would seemingly have to be sans MD, ED, and PD, apperceptive consciousness and conscience (a 5th factor). Only then might ‘injustice’ operate sansthe creation/redemption model I perpetrate.

-- (John, please don’t feel obliged to answer all my responses. Just those that ‘hit’ or ‘miss’ you the most will do.)

quote:

---

[Philip] Unfortunately, there are grave problems with the term ‘intelligent’, as you all have pointed out. ‘Intelligent’ was used as a ‘scientific’-appealing term, which is one perspective of cosmic and human reality.

​

[John] I'm going to have to ask for more clarifiction here. Maybe I'm missing something simple.

---

--OK, I’ll attempt to play like ‘intelligence’ is arbitrary, a mere subjective term, for purposes of discussion. Let’s say it is OK to state ‘design’ without intelligence --as the term IQ seems arbitrary or unnecessary in a science of origins.
--Now I cannot r/o ‘design’, John, as it appears too conspicuous and multi-tiered, at least in the innumerable ‘gaps’ of the Mega-ToE. Such innumerable ‘gaps’ of logic in the ToE necessitating ‘design’ or ‘supernatural’ intervention, I probably won’t even touch here, if that’s OK, at least for now.

quote:

---

by John
OK. You admit that 'intelligence' may imply little more than tha ability to score well on tests. The part about the big-bang/big-crunch/Stephen Hawking/bypassing entropy & final cause bit probably has some bearing on the discussion but I don't see how. I'm thinking that there is a argument in there somewhere, especially in light of your next comment.

​

[Philip states:] But, we seem to perhaps have one more serious problem than entropy and primary cause(s), while attempting to negate ‘intelligence’, itself. That problem is humans have extremely APPERCEPTIVE minds, let alone apperceptive ethics-morality, apperceptive emotions/affections, and apperceptive strength. (By apperceptive I mean ‘reflecting in consciousness’) It seems clear that our intelligence is abstractly multi-dimensional.

​

[John responds:] hmmm..... ok. Since we have 'abstractly multi-deminsional' minds (meaning, I think, there is more going on inside our heads than logic and memory) then an ID would have to have the same features in its mind, or incorporated into its intelligence. Is that where you are going with this?

---

--Yes.

quote:

---

by John
The first thing that comes to mind is the question: When someone creates something, is it necessary that that inventor know all of the consequences of that invention beforehand? I say not. Take mathematics. The fundamentals have been around for thousands of years, but the consequences have not been fully worked out.
More specifically, Pythagoras created a mathematics and philosophy based on ratios of one thing to another. Still he refused to accept some of the consequences of that mathematics -- notable the irrational number, even though it kept popping up. He can't be said to have known beforehand that those irrationals where hiding to ambush him.
As relates to this topic, the ID may have created a world containing things he did not expect. An ID could have created a few simple rules to set the whole thing going. This ID would not have to be very intelligent at all, just lucky.

---

--I see your point. This has been a snare for the honest creationist.
1) If I (or anyone) states a universe’s design LACKS OMNISCIENCE than I imply that designer is not the all-knowing God. Such a god would be akin to Greek gods, etc. This is too easy to do and hard not to do, I grant you. The God-of-the-gaps hypothesis (which I advocate to varying extents) seems to reprove this notion, i.e., the ‘fortuitous’ interplay of cosmic ‘edifying’ forces where the serious mega-gaps in the ToE cannot be explained otherwise again, too innumerable to cite here.
2) If I (or anyone) states the designer IS OMNISCIENT of his design, than why did he allow so many random events to ‘throw us off’, etc. to deceive his creatures? How could any omniscient universe designer know every hair, every atom, every tiny force-vector, every sub-atomic ‘chess move’, every random gaseous particle, every meson, neutrino, quark, etc., etc., let alone the infinitudes of their present, past, and future ramifications. Numerous other questions arise. Fortunately, faith biases assist in strong measure to produce an extremely scientific re-construction of the ‘God-of-the-Gaps’, to support that the Supreme-Designer appears indeed omniscient. Now faith-biases are required for any ‘gap-infested’ atheistic Mega-ToE, any theistic Mega-ToE, or any theistic YEC model, as you probably already realize. Science can never explain the innumerable cosmic ‘miracles’. This is a scientific fact we both must face. [Quote] by Philip and John
[Philip:] The problem with THIS universe is that it contains higher life-forms and humans that are (1) Morally-Designed (MD), (2) Emotionally-Designed (ED), and (3) Powerfully-Designed (PD) to varying extents. Humans also have the extremely apperceptive consciousness (mind), rendering the MD, ED, and PD extremely REAL, don’t you think?

​

[John: ] I don't see this as rendering the *D's more real, any more than a maniac's delusions are rendered real by virtue of their being in his brain.
--What you say seems true from the purely ‘scientific’ view, i.e., the deluded view that the innumerable ‘scientific’ gaps themselves are explained by science. The maniac has his universe to deal with. Who am I to violate the ‘D’s of the maniac, as long as he is not breaking the ‘Law(s) of love’ too violently. That we all adhere to the law(s) of love to varying extents is demonstrated by our acceptance of most of the laws of the land. Now these laws of love are ethical in nature and defy science, as well. For who would honestly state that he loves his neighbor, wife, and/or children as mere evolved slime?
--Yet, you may argue, the maniac’s ‘D’s aren’t rendered more ‘real’ by apperception, and that the eternal weight/value of this person is minimal, perhaps. But, that would be the same as saying, his abstract multi-tired (inner) heart, soul, strength, and mind is worthless in the cosmic balance, i.e., mere ‘dust in the wind’. Such can only be true of the natural/scientific side of man, don’t you think? That there is a ‘living soul’ inside of you is proven by your multi-tiered and multi-dimensional apperception(s); this is a huge gap for mere science. Now neurologists and neuro-physiologists will cite Limbic/Cortical Cerebral synapses that account for ‘emotions’, but they never can account for human apperception, scientifically. Apperception seems ‘breathed’ into you by God.
--Thus, I would maintain that the ‘real-apperceptive’ you is far more valuable than the entire universe sans other persons. Why? Because the ‘real-apperceptive’ you is undeniably a ‘supernatural living soul’, a soul that defies scientific comprehension. [Quote] by John
That or we just made the *D's up. Or they are useful concepts but technically untrue-- like using the idea of a monster(or saint like Santa Claus) to keep little kids in line. Or lke using Newtonian mechanics to calculate the orbit of planets. Again, useful on a small scale but technically not correct. Or like using the formulas of fluid dynamics to calculate the flow of liquids. Those formulas are approximations but technically not correct in that they do not deal with every single movement of every molecule in a liquid.
--I strongly agree with your noted Newtonian and other scientific pitfalls, they approach the fullness of scientific truth, but not all of it.--Your supernatural *D’s (a.k.a. ‘heart’, ‘soul’, ‘strength’, ‘mind’) seem true, technically and/or otherwise. The ‘real-apperceptive-you’ has just received my ‘communication’ via the medium of the written word, from me, another wretched but ‘living’ soul. While computers and animals ‘hand-shake’ information, they don’t apperceive with the written word in any significant abstract manner.--Your apperception is extremely valuable in my technical and non-technical calculations, both. Your mind as such is so profoundly apperceptive it appears much more real than all that gappy-science and universal phenomena, per se (which I’d just as soon see ‘pass-away’). As such, someone may sacrifice her life for your apperceptive phenomena, or pray for your soul, or honor and serve you till death.--Does science negate our value in the cosmic balance, the mortal grasshoppers that we are? When we return to the dust, will not ‘reality’ continue, with or without gappy-science? (Note: I will be happy to drop a few hundred ‘gaps’ of the Mega-ToE-science that require the ‘God-of-the-Gaps’ to explain so many fortuitous cosmic miracles; just say the word)--Now the God-of-the-Gaps must be accepted by Evo’s as ‘I’D, else their Mega-ToE framework is most ‘unintelligent’. Granted, John, ‘intelligence’ often seems an abstract, arbitrary, aloof term, but a necessary term.--In Sum: The ‘stupid’/non-omniscient ‘Greek-god’ ‘I’D seems disproved by:
1) The exceedingly fortuitous ‘God-of-the-Gaps’ found in the science of the Mega-ToE. (Examples are too numerous on all cosmic levels)
2) The other ‘real’ human *D’s coupled with multi-tiered abstracting human apperception, i.e., a mental physiology that defies all scientific comprehension.
3) The law(s) of love that try to prevent murder while self-sacrificing for other persons as trans-scientific dignities and not as mere existential entities.

Louw Alberts states in ‘Christianity and the Enquiring Mind’ A GOD-OF-THE-GAPS LOGIC (OEC) that seems necessary for you Evo’s, who, like John, reject the existence of the aperceptive mind (A.K.A. soul). I, Philip, do not necessarily agree with nor refute these many selected pro-ToE-ID evidences (below). This of course is but a mere fraction of the numerous evidences and categories of evidences of ID necessary for a Mega-ToE. The YEC model seems perhaps more ‘plausible, ‘easier’ (and parsimonious, John ), even from deriving these evidences of ID, many from the ‘ToE’ itself:

quote:

---

Let us name the initial blob of energy the cosmic nucleus, and let us assume at this stage that somehow it just got there. If we do have this starting point, how could the rest of the expansion leading to a universe as we know it, take place? The requirements are actually so astounding that it takes us well beyond the capacity of our imaginations. If, right at the start, the universe expanded too slowly, the material particles and ultimate matter that formed would, under mutual gravitational attraction, collapse into a very dense blob, in fact it would end up as a premature crunch. On the other hand, if it expanded too rapidly there would not be an opportunity for galaxies and ultimately, planets to form.

​

The necessary balance between too slow and too fast is so acute that it cannot differ by more than 1 part in 1055 (which is 1 with 55 noughts following on). Just to get an idea what this means, consider the whole earth as being made up of average sized sand grains. There would be 1031 such grains. Now place 1024 (a trillion trillion) earths, all made up of sand grains on a huge scale and balance it exactly. Remove one sand grain from one of the earths and you have the deviation necessary that could disrupt the big bang’s correct procedure.

​

The well-known astrophysicist Roger Penrose, computed the odds that the present universe came into being, rather than a black hole cosmos, to be 1 against 10( 10 ) 30 (1 with 1030 noughts after it).

​

There are, in nature, a number of physical constants designated by letters that are common to all scientists world wide. Here are a few:
e: the basic unit of electric charge associated with an electron. Electrons are the particles moving around the positive nuclei of atoms.
m: the mass of the electron.
c: velocity of light in vacuum.
h: Planck’s constant, a very important constant associated with energy.
G: the gravitational constant associated with the force of attraction between material bodies.
If such constants did not have the precise values that they do possess and did not stand in relation to one another (in size), in the way they do, then the programme that ultimately led to life on planet earth could not have taken place.

​

There are a number of books with excellent discussions, for instance God and the New Physics or Accidental Universe by Paul Davies, explaining in detail how necessary the precise value of the various forces are in order to provide a universe that will ultimately support biological life as we know it. To illustrate. If the strong nuclear force holding protons and neutrons together were just slightly stronger than what it actually is, protons and neutrons would have such an affinity for one another that they would clump together to form only heavy elements, and there would be no light elements such as hydrogen left. The latter is absolutely essential to support life. On the other hand, if the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, then there would only be hydrogen in the universe and that would not do either.

​

If the gravitational force was too strong, stars would burn out too quickly and their behaviour become too eratic. For instance, our sun has just the right rate of burning and is very steady in the emission of heat and light, which is of course vitally necessary for sustaining life on earth.

​

Moreover, the balance of gravitational and electromagnetic forces is crucial in determining the character and life of stars.

​

Again the electromagnetic forces play the most important role in the formation of molecules (where atoms come together in groups that have particular chemical properties)

​

and of course, if we don’t have the right molecules, biological systems such as plants, animals and people could not come into existence.

​

The reader can sense that there is a vast network of factors necessary to provide the correct materials and energy resources in order for a planet, with all the necessary resources such as earth, to come into existence. Every point in this network is determined by the values of the basic forces. Disturb one force even slightly in strength and the network becomes so distorted that the well-known astrophysicist, Hoyle, who in his earlier writings certainly made no room for a Deity, did concede that A SUPER INTELLECT HAS MONKEYED WITH PHYSICS, as well as with chemistry and biology. In his later writings he gave more realistic credence to the super intellect.

​

An oscillating universe could be regarded as having been there forever, and therefore it had no beginning. Suffice it to say that the speculations on such a situation are severely criticised by many a leading scientist and, in any case, if the universe eventually does indicate oscillation, it is certain from thermodynamical reasoning that it could not go on doing so forever. Note that the laws of thermodynamics are regarded as the best established laws in science. In fact, it would not go back to more than roughly 12 oscillations. In other words, the universe would still have a definite beginning.

​

Finally, we have to consider the beginning itself. Where did the original somewhat mysterious blob of energy come from? We called it the cosmic nucleus, mysterious in the sense that it has virtually zero dimensions, but infinite content. There are essentially two approaches. Firstly, it was put there by the Creator. The fact that He is Almighty God makes it perfectly possible for Him to do so. It is meaningless to ask, if space and time came with the big bang, where was God before the great event took place? There is no need whatever for the God of the Bible to be confined to space and time. HE simply IS and it is perfectly reasonable to expect Him to be outside his own Creation.

​

However, let us suppose for a moment that we could establish the origin of the cosmic nucleus in terms of the laws of physics. One is then immediately confronted with the challenging question: Where did the laws come from?

​

Are these laws autonomous? Do they exist independently of the physical universe, or are they the by-products of the universe? Or, are they simply the products of man’s reasoning in describing the universe? It must be clear to us that the laws cannot be both the cause of the universe coming into being, and at the same time, the result of the universe being what it is.

​

If, and this would be a sheer leap of faith, the laws are there, independent of the existence of the universe, then their origin can only be ascribed to God the Creator.

​

Whichever way we reason, we cannot escape the revelation penned down in the first verse of the Bible. In the beginning [of time] God created the heavens and the earth [space and material objects]. The words in brackets are added simply to indicate that our present day understanding of the cosmos fits in well with the first verse in the Bible.

​

Stars that are big enough and old enough can, because of the intense gravitational compression taking place within them, undergo nuclear processes that give rise to the heavier elements. The great question arises: How did the building material come together to form planets moving in a given way around a suitable star?

​

There are many unanswered questions arising from this best model thus far. For instance:

​

How does one explain the earth’s metallic core?

​

Why does the sun in the centre and the large planets at the outer edge, consist mainly of light gases while the group of smaller ones, ie. Mercury, Mars, Venus and Earth contain the heavy elements? Normally one would expect the original cloud of gas and dust rotating about its centre to have a distribution of material ranging from light in the middle to heavy at the outer edges.

​

The collection or accretion of dust particles by initially smaller bodies in order to grow to planet sizes, does not account for possible vaporization on impact.

​

Venus, Uranus and Pluto rotate in a direction opposite to that of the rest of the planets. Picture an observer looking from outer space onto our solar system. Looking from above he will see the sun and planets rotating in an anticlockwise direction, with the exception of Venus, Uranus, and Pluto. Similarly, all the planets will be revolving around the sun in an anticlockwise direction. So will all the satellites or moons around the planets, but again there are a few exceptions. A very general term, such as localised turbulence, is often employed to explain away the above questions. But, let’s face it, there is still no really satisfactory understanding of the origin of the solar system. Whatever detailed model ultimately prevails, it is very evident that one has here an amazing interplay of gravitational and rotational forces.

​

the strange conduct of the planet Saturn’s complex ring system. Pictures of these rings indicate that they appear as solid circles surrounding the planet. Actually they are composed of myriads of small orbiting particles. an incredibly complex system of a vast multitude of rings, with spokes and other irregularities. According to our present understanding of mechanics they should have collapsed long ago instead of persisting for billions of years, without let-up, in their present format. To quote Paul Davies1: It is impossible to ponder the existence of these rings without words such as ‘regulation’ and ‘control’ coming to mind.

​

If the designer ultimately wants biological specimens such as plants and animals, a decision has to be made as to what kind of atoms will be employed and how they will be fixed to one another. After considering the various forms of interatomic forces as they occur in various substances such as metals and salts he/she will find that the only choice is the so-called covalent bond as displayed in carbon chemistry. So the DECISION will be that the element carbon is essential for the chemistry of living things.2

​

Considering the minor, but nevertheless vital role that heavier elements will also play, the decision will be that the heavenly body serving as a home for the biological specimens must provide carbon and a number of other required elements. This in turn, will demand a selection of a parent dust/gas cloud ...

​

The latter will require a universe, developed precisely according to a large number of VERY FINELY TUNED PARAMETERS, a universe of a certain age and a certain minimum size.

​

Of the billion galaxies in the universe a small fraction will be suitable to house the birthplace of the planet in question. Hence a suitable spiral galaxy such as the Milky Way, must be available and the place of settlement within the galaxy must be right.

​

In the design of a suitable planet it would be wise to have a fair number of planets formed simultaneously. For instance, if there is only one to start with, it is very likely to have an elliptical orbit around its star. This would result in too high and low temperature extremes as it comes closer and then recedes from the star.

​

Having a number of planets would lead to their mutual gravitational interactions, causing their orbits to ultimately settle in circles. This would result in a steady exposure to the radiation emanating from the sun.

​

If there are to be a number of planets it would also be very clever to have large ones, like Jupiter and Saturn towards the outside, in order to shield the life supporting planet from dangerous comet bombardment.

​

In all the above reasoning our designer will have to make sure that the star around which the chosen planet will orbit must be of exactly the right kind.

​

It must be of a given massto receive sufficient radiation.

​

Coming too close will result in gravitational interactions that will slow down the rotation of the planet about its own axis. The days and nights would become inordinately long as happened with Mercury and Mars. The extremes of boiling hot long days and subzero long nights would not be amenable to biological life.

​

However, even the best of near steady state stars are not steady enough. For example, the sun’s radiation has increased by some third of its value since life started up on earth.

​

Fortunately this was compensated for by a concomitant change in the contents of the earth’s atmosphere, brought about by the right species of life on it.

​

Carbon must be freely available over the surface of the planet. Clearly the best way would be to have carbon in the atmosphere in the form of a gas and for obvious reasons one would settle for carbondioxide, non-toxic, slightly soluble in water, but not too soluble.

​

Together with the requirements of oxygen, mixed with a somewhat inert gas such as nitrogen and water vapour, the chosen planet must be of just the right mass in order to have a gravitational field that will hold the prescribed atmosphere. Bodies such as the moon and Mars hold no atmosphere because they are too small to hold it down. Against that, Jupiter is so massive that it holds light gases such as hydrogen and methane and they are not amenable to biological life at all.

​

As already pointed out, the speed of rotation around its own axis must lend itself to days and nights of the right length in order to minimise temperature differences. A further great advantage would be to have a massive temperature stabiliser.

​

Of all the substances in nature, water is the best candidate for holding a lot of heat per unit mass. Hence, water oceans on the planet would be a great positive factor.

​

It would be just as well if the water had the peculiar property, different to other liquids, of being heaviest just before freezing. Ice would thus form from the top down, enabling the specimens living in the water to comfortably survive under the ice caps when freezing does set in.

​

Tilting the planet in such a way that the axis of rotation is at a small angle to the plane of revolution around the sun, would result in seasons and thus a much larger surface area on the planet would be good for a wider variety of species.

​

A solution of non-poisonous salts in the oceans would support the formation of clouds; the latter providing moisture over the land surface,

​

as well as shielding the planet to a degree from the sun’s radiation, thus providing further levelling off of the temperature. Setting up the chemistry of the oceans in such a way that poisonous salts are not present is a formidable task, but with very astute chemical engineering it can be done.

​

Providing the planet with a relatively large satellite such as the moon, will guarantee that there is a lot of vitally necessary movement of the coastal waters in order to cleanse and replenish the necessary nutrients for life in the sea.

​

One could go on for a long time, listing many more characteristics pertaining to a life supporting planet. These factors are well discussed in literature, and books by writers such as R.E.D. Clark and Hugh Ross provide ample information. The latter author has calculated that the statistical chances of finding even one more planet such as the earth in all of the known universe is omissibly small. Man’s home is a very unique place.

​

The unavoidable question that arises is the following: If one cannot escape the reality of design and a designer whom we call God, then why did He go to such an immeasurably great deal of trouble to put together such a vast universe in order to provide one tiny sphere, called earth, on which man can live? Surely there must be other worlds with life on them? Is it not supremely arrogant to assume we are the only intelligent biological species in existence? ... Why no intelligent rational response to all the signals that have left planet earth? We need spend no further time on this topic.

​

To return to the challenging question. Why did the Deity put up such a vast system as the cosmos if the foreseeable culmination is a home for plants, animals and especially mankind? THE BIBLE HAS THE ANSWER. MEN AND WOMEN ARE MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD WITH THE CAPACITY TO REASON, CHOOSE, ENJOY INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY AND ESPECIALLY TO LOVE. If we are made in His image, then going to all the trouble to provide such a remarkable place to live, becomes very reasonable. Regrettably, the relationship between God and mankind was seriously upset, resulting in all that went wrong on planet earth.

​

If the origin of the physical universe and a planet such as earth seems amazing, then biological life itself and its manifestations in ever so many forms, ranging from tiny bacteria to plants and animals and finally mankind, is even more phenomenal.

​

Life is the property of a system that is exceedingly complex, even in its very simplest forms; the complexity being ordered and harmonised, unique in every individual as well as in grouping, with an inherent functional purpose of its own, always derived from a living predecessor and has the property of reproduction.

​

At one stage of history there was hope that the transition from living to non-living matter would be a continuous one, but the advent of modern molecular biology has firmly established that the gap between life and non-life is unimaginably enormous.

​

An organic rich pool of water on planet earth containing all the necessary prebiotic (ie. before the advent of biological life) components such as carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen etc. was subjected to lightning and ultraviolet rays. The impact of lightning discharges and ultraviolet radiation from the sun caused atoms to form groups known as amino acids. They had to be of the right atomic constitution with the atoms arranged in the correct spatial orientation. These groups came together to form the first protein molecules that in turn collected to form the first living cell. Thus life started off on planet earth.

​

All this had to happen in a chemical reducing atmosphere because in an oxidising atmosphere such as we have on planet earth today, the envisaged process could not take place.

​

Of course, if there was no free oxygen in the atmosphere, there could not have been any ozone and that in turn would mean that the ultraviolet dosage from the sun would be so lethal that the first living cell just would not have survived.

​

This picture requires a great deal of faith in the concept which we can call an unpurposed accident.

​

One might think of a hundred huge airplanes packed with bricks, cement, sand and water, flying high and opening their latches to let all the materials come tumbling down. What are the chances that the cement, sand and water will mix in the right proportions during downward transit, then settle between bricks which fall one on top of the other, to eventually produce a neat house with the right rooms to fulfil all the functions a home requires.

​

Today the situation is staggering. The amazing development of biochemistry of the last half century, revealed the true complexities of the cell and its covering membrane, the nearly immeasurable amount of information encoded in the DNA molecules in the cell, the necessary presence of thousands of complex molecules called enzymes and co-enzymes, and so one can go on and on. The very simplest of bacterial cells is more complex than any factory or plant ever constructed on earth.

​

The above illustration of the airplanes has to be extended. One has to consider millions of airplanes, all loaded with various building materials, flying hundreds of kilometres above the earth’s surface. What are the chances that, on opening their latches simultaneously, the materials will mix and fall into place to end up in the shape of New York City.

​

Several writers have put numbers to the mathematical chances of the first living cell coming together spontaneously. These numbers vary according to the cell model chosen, but they all have one common characteristic, namely that the chances are so small that one has to accept that the phenomenon of life is a PLANNED miracle.

​

One of the better known numbers is that calculated by the well-known, in fact famous physicists, Hoyle and Wickramasingh. They came up with 1 in 1040 000 which means one in 1 with 40 000 zeros after it.

​

Even if one chose to believe that life started off spontaneously somewhere in the universe and came by accident onto planet earth, it is evident that the whole known universe is too small to have housed the possibility of such a fantastic accident.

​

The objections to this type of calculation run as follows: It is not necessary to accept that the first living cell came together from its constituent atoms in one brief event. Simpler configurations of atoms and molecules could have formed over millions of years in many water habitats. The evolutionary principle of natural selection would determine that more and more complex groups survived, to ultimately move into the final living phase. This highly speculative argument can be ignored for the following reasons: Firstly, the application of the conjectured principle of natural selection to inert, dead material, which has never even been directly proved for live material, is hardly scientific. It is a matter of belief. Secondly, the associated functions that ultimately have to end up in the living cell, just cannot develop gradually.

​

The minimum information content in the DNA code necessary for reproduction cannot slowly grow from zero to the necessary required level. It has to be there from the beginning.

​

Finally, the original assumption that the atmosphere initially contained no free oxygen has not been established by any scientific investigations.

​

Moreover, if the rich organic soup ponds were present at the beginning, some of this material should be present in ancient sedimentary rocks. None has been found.

​

one would have expected that artificial conditions, over the past half century, could have been set up that would be vastly more amenable to the production of life than what fortuitous circumstances in nature could ever provide. In spite of the vast research programmes geared to such efforts, the results thus far, have shown no promise whatsoever. As biochemical information accumulates, the conclusion becomes stronger that the advent of life on earth must be a divine MIRACLE.

​

One can regard the fossil record as consisting of successive bands with life forms of ever increasing complexity. a new band appears quite suddenly without intermediaries. In the language of physics it can be described as quantum jumps from one group to another. The term used in biology is saltation or macro mutation. One can hardly avoid remembering the Bible verses in Genesis 1:21-25 where one reads that God created each according to its kind.

​

Darwin’s theory undoubtedly gripped the imagination of the scientific world and it has been pursued with vigour and much enthusiasm ever since. There are two essential reasons. As a theory it could, in principle, explain the many observations encountered in the biological world. The other reason is of a philosophical natureOne can comfortably dispense with belief in a personal CreatorRegrettably, most people equate these two terms and in questioning or criticising the term evolution, they are really thinking of evolutionism.

​

It is not a scientific theory, but rather a metaphysical one because it does not lend itself to falsification or disproof. This criticism emanates from the views of probably the greatest living philosopher at the time of writing, Sir Karl Popper. This displaces the theory from the realm of science to that of belief. Moreover, the concept of survival of the fittest asks the question: What is the definition of the fittest? The answer has to be: The fittest are those that survive. This circular argument is called a tautology and hardly warrants a place in a scientific theory.

​

The theory postulates gradual transition from one group to another. The fossil record in no way supports gradualism. This is one of the severest shortcomings in the Darwin model.

​

Mutations are generally negative, which simply means that when the genetic code does change because of some accident of chemical or physical origin, the result is a weaker offspring, not a stronger one.

​

Mathematicians, physicists and engineers are amongst the severest critics of the Darwin model, simply because this category of scientists like to put numbers to a theory, and their general view is that the mathematical chances of the necessary mutations taking place are so small that planet earth is far too young to provide the necessary timespan for development from molecules to men.

​

The unravelling of the structure and function of the cell, including the genetic code, gives no indication of a gradual ascent from the simpler species towards the complex. The DNA molecule in the cell contains an unimaginably vast store of information. Information content cannot just increase fortuitously, no more than new books can appear in a library without any cause or explanation.

​

Traditional biological classification (phyla, classes etc.) fits in with the Darwin model. A modern new system of classification called cladism has been developed in recent years. Cladograms deal with relationships amongst living and fossil species, but make no room for any common ancestors. The logic of this new approach cannot be faulted, but it is alien to the Darwin model.

​

The Darwin model, and in fact every other evolutionary model, cannot explain the so-called big bang in biology, in a short space of time, some 10 million years, there came into being a vast array of more complex multicellular creatures. This burst of creativity is still something of a mystery from a scientific point of view.

​

There is no successful laboratory demonstration that establishes the Darwin model. Such a situation is foreign to the scientific approach.

​

Finally, punctuated equilibriumany small change taking place in an individual within a given population would be absorbed by the remainder of the population. Somewhere on the periphery of the group a major genetic quantum jump would take place. The new species would multiply without having to compete with the original group and finally make its appearance as an established entity. The logic of this model is attractive, but in no way can modern molecular biology tolerate the required quantum jumps and there is no palaeontological evidence to substantiate the model. However, it is a useful and plausible theory to explain what has been termed micro-evolution. Small changes, from a mouse to a rat or vice versa, from a white to a brown seagull etc. can be understood in terms of this model. It cannot justify macro-evolution, such as the jump from a reptile to a bird.

​

recognizing that there is a Creator that stepped in from time to time to cause major changes, would be an honest approach in terms of what we know and understand in the present day. This would not be contrary to the available scientific evidence or to the Bible.

​

According to Christianity, man’s origin was planned by God the Creator. The Bible teaches that he was created in the image of God which simply means that man had the ability to choose, reason, love, enjoy truth and beauty and so forth. He lived in communion with God, but the relationship was upset because of the willing co-operation of man with the forces of evil.

​

Man is thus a fallen creature in the spiritual sense and cannot start the spiritual ascent, other than through the cross of Christ.

​

The most common objection to any notion of design is that it falls outside the range of scienceIn fact, many philosophers of science now recognize that proposed principles of demarcation are themselves philosophically chargedthat they reflect the metaphysical presuppositions of the person proposing them. Larry Laudan writes that the principles offered for defining science really function as weapons in philosophical battles. No one can look at the history of debates between scientists and ‘pseudo-scientists’ without realizing that demarcation criteria are typically used as machines de guerre in a polemical battle between rival camps,

​

Francis Crick’s autobiography, What Mad Pursuit. After surveying his role in the DNA revolution, Crick remarks, Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. The words sound almost as though Crick has to persuade himselfagainst the most natural reading of the evidencethat life really is a result of natural causes alone. It’s as though a geologist were to gaze on the four presidential faces carved into Mt. Rushmore and then to insist, despite the obvious marks of human workmanship, that the faces are the product of natural forces aloneof wind and water erosion. In DNA the marks of intelligent workmanship are equally evident. FONT>

---

To sum up. The problem with evolutionism is that it has no room for a redeemer and that is why Christianity cannot ever come to terms with it.

​

Judging from my recent onslaught of unseemly responses from my Evo-brethren, please accept the following mild ‘sermonizing’.

​

When there is a discrepancy between God and science, it is science (man’s understanding) which always needs modifying. In time, it will make that adjustment as it has so often in the past. The Word of God stands forever, albeit we ALL misinterpret it.

​

And our problem is not that we are individuals who need to experience our oneness with the Whole; our problem is that we are sinners who need to understand our brokenness before a holy Creator.

​

__________________________________________________

​

References in Order of citing:
Alberts, L. (1997, c1996). Christianity and the enquiring mind : Essays on the compatibility of the Bible and the findings of science. Also available in Afrikaans. Vereeniging: Christian Publishing Co.
Alberts, L. (1997, c1996). Christianity and the enquiring mind : Essays on the compatibility of the Bible and the findings of science. Also available in Afrikaans. Vereeniging: Christian Publishing Co.
Alberts, L. (1997, c1996). Christianity and the enquiring mind : Essays on the compatibility of the Bible and the findings of science. Also available in Afrikaans. Vereeniging: Christian Publishing Co.
Alberts, L. (1997, c1996). Christianity and the enquiring mind : Essays on the compatibility of the Bible and the findings of science. Also available in Afrikaans. Vereeniging: Christian Publishing Co.
Pearcey, N. (1994). The soul of science : Christian faith and natural philosophy. Turning point Christian worldview series (Page 246). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.
Pearcey, N. (1994). The soul of science : Christian faith and natural philosophy. Turning point Christian worldview series (Page 245). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.
Alberts, L. (1997, c1996). Christianity and the enquiring mind : Essays on the compatibility of the Bible and the findings of science. Also available in Afrikaans. Vereeniging: Christian Publishing Co.
Pearcey, N. (1994). The soul of science : Christian faith and natural philosophy. Turning point Christian worldview series (Page 205). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 06-19-2002]

Is there no 'quick & dirty' answer to the topic's central query:
How intelligent must a designer be ?
--Infinitely so I’m afraid, i.e., based on the data Above.So far, We've been given no methodology to evaluate an ID's IQ
which may be a good thing since we've been given no evidence to evaluate.
--How can a finite mortal evaluate such exhaustive evidence of an infinite God? Perhaps you’d assume INFINITE evidence is no evidence, since the evidence should be finite by naturalistic rules. Or you just didn’t see any evidence in the Above! I don’t believe you, respectfully.Is the Intelligent Design theory found to be stillborn because it cannot answer one if its own assumptions ?
-- Is the ToE found to be stillborn because it cannot answer one if its own assumptions ? I.e., the myriads of gap assumptions described Above? Of course there are faith biases involved in both theories.Do IDers attempt to substantiate the one God of the Bible ... only to have their theory suggest an army of dim-designers; each responsible for only one organism ?
--‘Dim-designers’, where does this concept play in? Probably for all advocates of the Mega-Toe, if honest. Why do you look at this like its crazy? Your faith biases are anti-design based on a hyper-naturalistic perspective. Your ingenious anti-design design of words is proof enough that design is both intelligent and real.
--The question is OEC (god(s) of the gaps) or YEC. You inadvertently suggest OEC, to refute the Bible. But the author, Louw Alberts, (Above), himself, is an OEC. You 2 seem to differ only by degrees; albeit, you appear to design an anti-design theory.Does the complexity and efficiency of a design suggest how Intelligent the designer must be ?
if yes - how so ? ‘
--Yes, take one of his products, you for example complex, efficient, intelligent.
if no - why not ?
--A ‘hyper-naturalist’ may argue no because high universal quantities of ‘slime’ supposedly produces ‘much higher events’ (if there be such a thing) by random chance, etc....and since I asked this question from a scientific perspective
( since IDists want ID to be scientific too ) why are we speculating on such intangibles as sin, redemption, ethics & morality ? Has any science made conclusions on these concepts ?--Because they too are observed in nature, everywhere, as we’d expect
HERE)Can Altruism be found scientifically sound according to Nuclear Physics ?
-- Can the ToE be found scientifically sound according to Nuclear Physics? Like the ToE, the ToCCaR (Theory of Christ Crucified and Risen) is not pertinent to Nuclear Physics.After all, isn’t morality a cultural product and therefore culturally subjective ?
-- After all, isn’t the ToE a cultural product and therefore culturally subjective. All faith biases are culturally subjective.Philip
------------------
"Freedom of Science" equates to Freedom -FROM- those sciences we find unbelievable.

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 06-20-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
I never rejected anything of the sort, Phillip. Please be careful. You equate an aperceptive mind with a soul, I don't. Merely grouping the two does not make them the same. In fact, much of my argument has involved demonstrating that fact. In short and for the record, I see no evidence for a soul; to say we have an aperceptive mind does no more than roughly describe how humans think. I don't have a problem with that, but it does not imply a soul.

---

--So now, for the record, you have a mind but not a soul? What’s the difference pray tell? Perhaps Quetzel will agree with you. You have an aperceptive mind, which is none other than a spirit, biblically? But no soul? Please be careful, John. It’s seems a lot more unscientific to state you have an aperceptive mind (spirit) but have no soul (seat of the affections).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzal:
[B]Nice cut and paste job Philip. Now perhaps you'd care to pick one or two points that you personally feel are the most compelling support for your position and restate them in your own words with your own comments. We might then have something resembling a debate or discussion. Since, as you stated... I, Philip, do not necessarily agree with nor refute these many selected pro-ToE-ID evidences, it seems fairly pointless to discuss the "evidence" if you don't agree with it. The tactic you used here - a massive cut-and-paste with no comment - is usually the last gasp of someone who has no argument. I wasn't aware that you were so desperate. [B][/QUOTE]--Relax Quetzal, do I appear gasping? Are you out of order with this all-too proverbial form of intimidation? John doesn’t require pissy lurking responses; you’ve jumped in the argument out of nowhere. Admit it, we’re both desperate with our novels. Wanting to make the world a better place, etc. Clinging onto our fabulous faith biases. Albeit, I always welcome your input. I had to cut and paste this stuff from other sources than the web. I shrunk the font to make it arbitrary enough, barely readable (not very desperate); I was ashamed of the OEC implications if you really want to know.--But to update you, Quetzal: Louw Alberts supports the ‘God-of-the-gaps’-ID necessity for Evos and OECs. As such it all ‘appears’ refutable to various extents, especially to me, a YEC. I don’t require a God-of-the-Gaps. I scientifically believe the gospel-model of creation according to the Bible.--Please, you pick a couple points, and we’ll try to ‘discuss’ it in John’s context of ‘How’ intelligent must the ID be. (A.K.A., welcome back to your worst Fundy-YEC nightmare)Philip
------------------
"Freedom of Science" equates to Freedom -FROM- those sciences we find unbelievable.
(A.K.A., Give it up Evo’s, you need a dim designer or two, don’t you reckon?)

John, I appreciate your replies; this a meager work-up of the psyche/soul that you demand. Jeff, Quetzel, and anyone else may critique this as well.I. HYPOTHESISHumans have a supernatural apperceptive 'heart' and/or 'soul' (...'mind' ... and/or 'strength')II. MATERIALS AND METHODSA Non-Dogmatic Observed Mental Physiology of Some Human Apperceptive Faculties With:
a) Description
b) Some (proposed) Mental Physiological Organs
c) Synonyms and/or sub-apperceptions
Inferences will be made on the data via these sub-headings, to wit, whether humans empirically have an apperceptive 'heart', 'soul', 'mind', and/or 'strength' ... and, if they appear beyond naturalistic explanation. The term 'you' may appear 'begged' to some but will be used on grounds of parsimony, here.
This is to be a non-dogmatic arbitrary classification of the mental physiology of human apperception.III. OBSERVED DATA1) HEART/AFFECTIONS
a) 'Feeling that you feel', 'Desiring to lust', etc.
b) Limbic, thalamic, visceral, hormonal, hypothalamic-pituitary system, reticular activating system (mid-brain).
c) Emotion(s), desire(s), lust, etc.2) SOUL/PERCEPTIONS/SENSES
a) 'Perceiving that you sense', 'Perceiving that you are known'
b) Postero-lateral cerebrum, frontal cortex(es), Cortical-spinal tracks
c) Psyche, consciousness, sub-conscious, conscious memory, sensation/proprioception, cerebellum,3) MIND/SPIRIT
a) 'Knowing', 'Knowing that you know', 'Knowing that you know that you perceive that you know', etc.
b) Cortical (frontal lobes), Memory centers (posterior-lateral and/or temporal lobes)
c) Will, cognition, etc.4) STRENGTH/MOTION
a) 'Acting in your consciousness', 'Running in your dreams', etc.
b) Basal Ganglia, Cerebella, Medulla, Spinal-thalamic tracks,
c) Motivation, power, energy, libido, etc.IV. TESTING AND RESULTSThe above divisions might just as well be renamed under other schemes, e.g., eliminate number 4 (Strength) and/or 3 (Mind) and include them in 1 (heart/affections) and/or 2 (soul/perceptions), or similar scheme(s). Biblical schemes and naturalistic schemes alike seem to invoke semantically problems. For example, calling the 'apperceptive mind' a 'brain' or 'soul' is both bad science and oversimplified biblical metaphysics.Yet, these apperceptive phenomena do exist as extremely real, dynamically complex, and interdependent entities. Yet, they certainly are expected to exist to a profound extent in humans, as demonstrated by profoundly abstract verbal and written communications. As such they appear to suggest enormously peculiar systems of harmony, symmetry, and proportion, i.e., parallel universes: Art, music, theater, friendships, ethics, politics, religion, etc. They appear to have no conclusive scientific explanation for their existence whatsoever.Many apperceptions are indeed enhanced and inhibited, to varying extents, by complex neural-hormonal systems (above). Yet observe:
--They are observed to produce neuro-hormonal effects via metaphysical-physical feedback loops (similar to those described by Descartes). Example: cortical-thalamic tracks/thalamic-hypothalamic and adrenal-pituitary feedback loops during emotional stress and cognition.
--They 'exist' outside the head, i.e., invisibly outside neuro-matter.
--The 'known you' (vs. 'you the knower') is observed to exist in a parallel universe. For example, 'you' are observed via telecommunication, email, etc. while 'imprisoned' somewhat by 'your body'.
--'You the knower' also exists outside the head (outside neuro-matter).
--Apperceptions operate in their own space-time continuum(s) and parallel universe(s). These may be hallucinogenic yet very real to 'you'.
--That 'significant other' is apperceptive in nature (soulish), not a body, not a mental-physiology, not a straw man, etc.
It utterly appears here that human apperceptions are not produced explicitly by naturalistic phenomena of neuroscience, and that they are merely enhanced and inhibited by neural-matter.--Unlike perceptions, apperceptive phenomena appear immeasurable by empirical methods. Albeit brain-wave activity may suggest the presence of apperceptions, such a correlation may imply mere arbitrary linking together of brain waves with perceptions and/or apperceptions.Apperceptions cease to varying extents in sleep, unlike perceptions, reflexes, sensations, etc. which continue independently. Interestingly, many young children fear to go to sleep, knowing, perhaps, that their 'joy of life' (to stay up) is ending.Apperceptions 'resurrect' upon awakening from sleep under most circumstances. That a 'person' anticipates his 'soul' with all its apperceptive faculties to awaken 'every morning' is seen and expected everywhere in nature.V. CONCLUSION/DISCUSSION
Humans, thus, DO possess an apperceptive 'heart', 'soul' ...'mind' ... and/or 'strength', that is, essentially, a fearfully complex yet excellent parallel universe. A soul's existence as such is supernatural, even unexplainable by naturalistic science.The phenomenon of apperceptive mental physiology is mysterious to all men, but we observe and expect these faculties to be empirically present, albeit, to varying extents.Neuroscientists consistently fail to apply appropriate parameters and mental physiologies for the human soul/apperceptive phenomena. As such, they often inadvertently confuse the psychological with the neuro-physiological. For example, 'conscious apperception' is often thought to be produced by the brain; but in reality it is merely modulated, to various extents, by some complex neuro-hormonal feedback loops. The fallacy is that apperceptive faculties reside, somehow, inside the perceptive faculties and/or somehow operate by the natural perceptive faculties. In reality, they are separate phenomena.The Bible seems also non-dogmatic and variable in actually defining the human apperceptive faculties. But, most biblical writers do strongly suggest their immense value in an unprecedented manner, even asserting their immortality and a God-like nature.To hypothesize and prove that the apperceptive 'you' is immortal is beyond the scope of this discourse. Immortality proofs, however, may be strongly suggested in nature, even by the miraculous and supernatural appearing apperceptions, their collaborative evidences, their 'awakenings' and 're-awakenings', and/or other 'redemptive' observations we ubiquitously and continuously expect to see everywhere.

John, I appreciate your replies; this a meager work-up of the psyche/soul that you demand. Jeff, Quetzel, and anyone else may critique this as well.I. HYPOTHESISHumans have a supernatural apperceptive 'heart' and/or 'soul' (...'mind' ... and/or 'strength')II. MATERIALS AND METHODSA Non-Dogmatic Observed Mental Physiology of Some Human Apperceptive Faculties With:
a) Description
b) Some (proposed) Mental Physiological Organs
c) Synonyms and/or sub-apperceptions
Inferences will be made on the data via these sub-headings, to wit, whether humans empirically have an apperceptive 'heart', 'soul', 'mind', and/or 'strength' ... and, if they appear beyond naturalistic explanation. The term 'you' may appear 'begged' to some but will be used on grounds of parsimony, here.
This is to be a non-dogmatic arbitrary classification of the mental physiology of human apperception.III. OBSERVED DATA1) HEART/AFFECTIONS
a) 'Feeling that you feel', 'Desiring to lust', etc.
b) Limbic, thalamic, visceral, hormonal, hypothalamic-pituitary system, reticular activating system (mid-brain).
c) Emotion(s), desire(s), lust, etc.2) SOUL/PERCEPTIONS/SENSES
a) 'Perceiving that you sense', 'Perceiving that you are known'
b) Postero-lateral cerebrum, frontal cortex(es), Cortical-spinal tracks
c) Psyche, consciousness, sub-conscious, conscious memory, sensation/proprioception, cerebellum,3) MIND/SPIRIT
a) 'Knowing', 'Knowing that you know', 'Knowing that you know that you perceive that you know', etc.
b) Cortical (frontal lobes), Memory centers (posterior-lateral and/or temporal lobes)
c) Will, cognition, etc.4) STRENGTH/MOTION
a) 'Acting in your consciousness', 'Running in your dreams', etc.
b) Basal Ganglia, Cerebella, Medulla, Spinal-thalamic tracks,
c) Motivation, power, energy, libido, etc.IV. TESTING AND RESULTSThe above divisions might just as well be renamed under other schemes, e.g., eliminate number 4 (Strength) and/or 3 (Mind) and include them in 1 (heart/affections) and/or 2 (soul/perceptions), or similar scheme(s). Biblical schemes and naturalistic schemes alike seem to invoke semantically problems. For example, calling the 'apperceptive mind' a 'brain' or 'soul' is both bad science and oversimplified biblical metaphysics.Yet, these apperceptive phenomena do exist as extremely real, dynamically complex, and interdependent entities. Yet, they certainly are expected to exist to a profound extent in humans, as demonstrated by profoundly abstract verbal and written communications. As such they appear to suggest enormously peculiar systems of harmony, symmetry, and proportion, i.e., parallel universes: Art, music, theater, friendships, ethics, politics, religion, etc. They appear to have no conclusive scientific explanation for their existence whatsoever.Many apperceptions are indeed enhanced and inhibited, to varying extents, by complex neural-hormonal systems (above). Yet observe:
--They are observed to produce neuro-hormonal effects via metaphysical-physical feedback loops (similar to those described by Descartes). Example: cortical-thalamic tracks/thalamic-hypothalamic and adrenal-pituitary feedback loops during emotional stress and cognition.
--They 'exist' outside the head, i.e., invisibly outside neuro-matter.
--The 'known you' (vs. 'you the knower') is observed to exist in a parallel universe. For example, 'you' are observed via telecommunication, email, etc. while 'imprisoned' somewhat by 'your body'.
--'You the knower' also exists outside the head (outside neuro-matter).
--Apperceptions operate in their own space-time continuum(s) and parallel universe(s). These may be hallucinogenic yet very real to 'you'.
--That 'significant other' is apperceptive in nature (soulish), not a body, not a mental-physiology, not a straw man, etc.
It utterly appears here that human apperceptions are not produced explicitly by naturalistic phenomena of neuroscience, and that they are merely enhanced and inhibited by neural-matter.--Unlike perceptions, apperceptive phenomena appear immeasurable by empirical methods. Albeit brain-wave activity may suggest the presence of apperceptions, such a correlation may imply mere arbitrary linking together of brain waves with perceptions and/or apperceptions.Apperceptions cease to varying extents in sleep, unlike perceptions, reflexes, sensations, etc. which continue independently. Interestingly, many young children fear to go to sleep, knowing, perhaps, that their 'joy of life' (to stay up) is ending.Apperceptions 'resurrect' upon awakening from sleep under most circumstances. That a 'person' anticipates his 'soul' with all its apperceptive faculties to awaken 'every morning' is seen and expected everywhere in nature.V. CONCLUSION/DISCUSSION
Humans, thus, DO possess an apperceptive 'heart', 'soul' ...'mind' ... and/or 'strength', that is, essentially, a fearfully complex yet excellent parallel universe. A soul's existence as such is supernatural, even unexplainable by naturalistic science.The phenomenon of apperceptive mental physiology is mysterious to all men, but we observe and expect these faculties to be empirically present, albeit, to varying extents.Neuroscientists consistently fail to apply appropriate parameters and mental physiologies for the human soul/apperceptive phenomena. As such, they often inadvertently confuse the psychological with the neuro-physiological. For example, 'conscious apperception' is often thought to be produced by the brain; but in reality it is merely modulated, to various extents, by some complex neuro-hormonal feedback loops. The fallacy is that apperceptive faculties reside, somehow, inside the perceptive faculties and/or somehow operate by the natural perceptive faculties. In reality, they are separate phenomena.The Bible seems also non-dogmatic and variable in actually defining the human apperceptive faculties. But, most biblical writers do strongly suggest their immense value in an unprecedented manner, even asserting their immortality and a God-like nature.To hypothesize and prove that the apperceptive 'you' is immortal is beyond the scope of this discourse. Immortality proofs, however, may be strongly suggested in nature, even by the miraculous and supernatural appearing apperceptions, their collaborative evidences, their 'awakenings' and 're-awakenings', and/or other 'redemptive' observations we ubiquitously and continuously expect to see everywhere.

quote:

---

By Quetzel
Could someone please define "aperceptive" for me in the context of this conversation?

---

--Aperceptive or Apperceptive in the way I use it is not found in all dictionaries. It has been defined essentially as "conscious perception". But I am use it to express a 'consciously abstracting and re-abstracting perceptiveness', as a psychological usage of the term. To my meager knowledge this is the closest word I can think of to describe the phenomenon. I welcome rebuke or rebuttal of this term to replace it with a more appropriate term.

quote:

---

By Shraf
Philip, I "challenge" you to "construct" a "reply" which doesn't "rely" on quotations to give you "wiggle room" with regards to the "meanings" of the "words" you "use".

---

Duly noted.

P: IV. TESTING AND RESULTS
Yet, these apperceptive phenomena do exist as extremely real, dynamically complex, and interdependent entities.J: Assumption. You haven't demonstrated this.P: "Extremely real" appears demonstrated enough by the observed data. Your psyche exists, what part of it is not demonstrated to exist? My pathetic BA in psychology also seems to testify to that. My mother, a psychiatrist, testifies to it all day as well. "Dynamically complex", the psyche's abstracting and re-abstracting powers of sensation, thought and affection are beyond my meager comprehension. Consider also the vast sea(s) of the subconscious. "Interdependent entities" are the abstracting and re-abstracting thoughts and emotions, especially in written communications, rebuttals, re-rebuttals, constructive plans, programming, song-writing, etc., etc. The apperceptive psyche with its faculties designs concrete and abstract designs with emotions, thoughts, sensations, perceptions, etc. that seems interdependent enough.
--One example: The portrait artist draws a girl's head: He must abstract and re-abstract the girl's facial cosmetics into color, contour, harmony, symmetry, proportion, likeness, feeling -- if his intent is emotional, redemption -- if his intent is to atone for blemishes, etc., etc.
____________________P: As such they appear to suggest enormously peculiar systems of harmony, symmetry, and proportion, i.e., parallel universes: Art, music, theater, friendships, ethics, politics, religion, etc. They appear to have no conclusive scientific explanation for their existence whatsoever.J: What?
Art-- transmission of information (an important survival factor for humans)
theatre-- same as art
friendship-- survival value. humans are social animals, culture is our primary means of adaptation, without it we ain't too fit
ethics-- same as friendship
politics-- same as friendship
religion-- same as friendshipP: Attributing these phenomena exclusively to 'survival of the fittest' alone seems:
1) Over-simplified in that many apperceptive abstractions seem to go beyond survival, not related to survival, and/or impertinent to survival: E.g., Art for arts sake, friendship for loneliness sake, religion for cursedness and guilt, etc.
2) Psychologically Projected (i.e., an individual's peculiar perspective generalized upon others)
3) Motive-oriented vs. mechanism-oriented: The denied mechanism being a non-naturalistic psychological mechanism.______________________
P: They are observed to produce neuro-hormonal effects via metaphysical-physical feedback loops (similar to those described by Descartes). Example: cortical-thalamic tracks/thalamic-hypothalamic and adrenal-pituitary feedback loops during emotional stress and cognition.J: Why does you example have nothing metaphysical in it?P: Descartes (I believe) first postulated metaphysical feedback occurring in the hypothalamus or pituitary gland of the mid-brain, where metaphysical thoughts could interact with naturalistic organs of the brain. A more accurate statement today might be:
1) Metaphysical (apperceptive, abstracting, and/or re-abstracting) thoughts interact (feedback) with the gray matter of the cerebral cortex for an organism's computational functions. These in turn relay via the usual neurological tracks to other areas of the brain, endocrine system(s), spinal white matter, other areas of frontal-lobe gray matter, and/or to the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal neural-harmonal complex (A.K.A HPA-Axis).
2) Metaphysical (apperceptive, abstracting, and/or re-abstracting) emotions interact (feedback) with the limbic system of the brain, with metaphysical thoughts, the APA-Axis, etc., etc.
--If you refer to the products of metaphysical thoughts and emotions (art, music, literature, etc.), there are already numerous academics that deal with these as metaphysical and/or non-naturalistic events. Then there's philosophy, theology, theistic-evolutionism, Haitian Voodoo, and other innumerable other disciplines that attempt to deal with one's supernatural metaphysics.
________________________P: They 'exist' outside the head, i.e., invisibly outside neuro-matter.J: You haven't demonstrated this, Phillip. You haven't even gotten close.P: I will agree that they appear trapped inside the space-time coordinates of the brain, notwithstanding the supposed out-of-body experiences of about 25% of humans.--But the gray matter is no different than an extremely complex computer. That the non-material apperceptive you, me, Jeff, Shraf, or Quetzel are material electromagnetic brain waves is erroneous, even from a naturalistic perspective. Or which evolutionist would state that you and I are light?
But if you even cite that the Bible states "the life (of Christ) was the light of men" (John 1.4 KJV Bible), that light is a redemptive phenomenon, i.e., an enlivening (metaphysical) spirit.--OK, some of you are even still professing we are a transient naturalistic form of light itself, housed and actuated by gray matter. Granted friend, light is extremely complicated phenomena, but light follows naturalistic science laws nonetheless. Are you brain plus light? How might we further beg the question? Add a little more computational gray matter, and the abstracting-re-abstracting psyche spontaneously generates, ... i.e., beyond the dog or monkey level?Back to your being a merely natural form of light ... I won't deny the naturalistic possibility. But your light still shines INSIDE and OUTSIDE the dark gray matter of your brain, and that in an incomprehensible manner.--The 'known you' (vs. 'you the knower') is observed to exist in a parallel universe. For example, 'you' are observed via telecommunication, email, etc. while 'imprisoned' somewhat by 'your body'.
________________________________J: Phillip.... geez! Now email is a parallel universe? This has nothing to do with any sort of metaphysical 'known you' It is purely physical transmission of data.P: The email transmission is naturalistic; the target of this email is the you-as-knower and the you-as-known. I equate both-of-you (knower and known) as a separate (parallel) universe that may or may not be inside your head, I concede, I cannot tell. Semantics are difficult. Your mental universe is extremely great. Perhaps finite and mortal to varying extents is the immense entity that you are, ... but not to the mere arrangement of your gray matter.
________________________________P: Unlike perceptions, apperceptive phenomena appear immeasurable by empirical methods.J: Then by what methods do we know they exist?
Your arguments look no better when dressed up all pretty-like than they did in there work clothes. In fact, I honestly can't find anything I'd call an argument. All I can find are repetitions of assumptions-- repetitions of assumptions I've called you on several times already on this thread.
I see Plato in your thought processes. I see Descarte. I see Kant. And you desperately need to get a grip on David Hume. Not to be a jerk but the problems inherent in the philosophies of these named gentlemen are apparent in your philosophy as well. You might find it useful to research the criticisms of those...P: By immeasurable, can mean any universe, the outside-our-head universe exists though we can't measure it empirically; i.e., without resorting to general relativistic theories that contain repetitions of assumptions, too. Likewise, an outer-darkness exists outside the megaverse(s) that seems immeasurable. Likewise time itself, from its eternities, is immeasurable. There are infinitely immeasurable variations of music, drama, color, sound, light, size, etc. that are real as well. Hume's empirical limitations on explaining psychological phenomena is not the big picture. The 2 don't marry.--Now, I apologize for crudeness of terms. 'Supernatural' is a term that denotes different meanings. So does the word 'immeasurable'. Often my corrupted faith-biases betray appropriateness in scientific methods. All your points are well taken and duly noted.