Intelligent Design
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Yes michael. Good point.
I've been wanting to say something along those lines but didn't know how to word it. People say "you can't disprove god so..." , you can't disprove him because he doesn't exist at all, there is no reason to think anything like god is anywhere. How can you disprove a word someone made up? An idea outside of reality? There is no real argument for that. People who "say prove god DOESN'T exist" seem to have the answer that there is such a thing as god already in their head.
If you want to call the process that is a universe "god" then that is a different story.
One_raven,
Yes it is not a design, but it is "intelligent", or as a human I appreciate its genius. It doesn't matter if something was making it happen or not. The very way nature works out is brilliant.
Complex is intelligent, when I use the word intelligent in this case I'm not refferring to a person or being or anything other than the history of earth and how it worked out. Maybe intelligent isn't the word but like a movie is "intelligent" so is earth. Sure the difference is someone made the movie but it doesn't matter, the movie is what I'm referring too and when you talk about earth it doesn't need a writer or producer.
Life on earth is an event that is complex yes but also brilliant with its coincidences and "plot twists" and tie ins and... well you know. Its amazing! We are all like "eh... it just happened, but come on, think about it, it is freaking amazing that THAT is what "just happens". So even if that is what 'just happens' it is genius.
We humans sprouted from it, meaning everything we are is but a tiny brush stroke in the enormous picture.
So it is EVERYTHING we are and so so so much more. I've heard people saying people are intelligent and no one finds that statement contraversial.
Our lives are a process and so is the earths, in the big scheme of things there isn't THAT much difference, if we can be considered intelligent than earth certainly can.
I've been wanting to say something along those lines but didn't know how to word it. People say "you can't disprove god so..." , you can't disprove him because he doesn't exist at all, there is no reason to think anything like god is anywhere. How can you disprove a word someone made up? An idea outside of reality? There is no real argument for that. People who "say prove god DOESN'T exist" seem to have the answer that there is such a thing as god already in their head.
If you want to call the process that is a universe "god" then that is a different story.
One_raven,
Yes it is not a design, but it is "intelligent", or as a human I appreciate its genius. It doesn't matter if something was making it happen or not. The very way nature works out is brilliant.
Complex is intelligent, when I use the word intelligent in this case I'm not refferring to a person or being or anything other than the history of earth and how it worked out. Maybe intelligent isn't the word but like a movie is "intelligent" so is earth. Sure the difference is someone made the movie but it doesn't matter, the movie is what I'm referring too and when you talk about earth it doesn't need a writer or producer.
Life on earth is an event that is complex yes but also brilliant with its coincidences and "plot twists" and tie ins and... well you know. Its amazing! We are all like "eh... it just happened, but come on, think about it, it is freaking amazing that THAT is what "just happens". So even if that is what 'just happens' it is genius.
We humans sprouted from it, meaning everything we are is but a tiny brush stroke in the enormous picture.
So it is EVERYTHING we are and so so so much more. I've heard people saying people are intelligent and no one finds that statement contraversial.
Our lives are a process and so is the earths, in the big scheme of things there isn't THAT much difference, if we can be considered intelligent than earth certainly can.
I agree with you Dr lou, but obviously the word "intelligent" is the stumbling block here.
I think assigning intelligence to something implies intention or cognizance (sp?).
For me to say something is "intelligent" I would be conceeding that it has thought behind it.
Complexity does not necessarily equate to intelligence because intelligence requires thought, determination, a prescribed purpose.
Therefore, intelligence DOES imply design and the Universe would require a creator of it were intelligent.
People exhibit, display or use intelligence.
People, as a machine, are not an intelligent design.
They are a complex system that was simply inevitable.
(that's just my opinion)
I think assigning intelligence to something implies intention or cognizance (sp?).
For me to say something is "intelligent" I would be conceeding that it has thought behind it.
Complexity does not necessarily equate to intelligence because intelligence requires thought, determination, a prescribed purpose.
Therefore, intelligence DOES imply design and the Universe would require a creator of it were intelligent.
People exhibit, display or use intelligence.
People, as a machine, are not an intelligent design.
They are a complex system that was simply inevitable.
(that's just my opinion)
Possible things happened. Sustainable things survived. besides, the need for improvement resulted in advanced life forms. It seems, so far nature played the blind watch maker. Now one of the life forms, humans, can evolve further with his own creation - the knowledge. Now intelligence is going to be behind the further evolution of humans. This might not be the final stage of evolution.
hehehe.. everything went fine as per schedule.
hehehe.. everything went fine as per schedule.
For the sake of clarity ...
Ockham's razor, also called the principle of parsimony, a methodological principle commending a bias toward simplicity in the construction of theories. The parameters whose simplicity is singled out for attention have varied considerably, from kinds of entities to the number of presupposed axioms to the nature of the curve drawn between data points. Found already in Aristotle, the tag "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity" became associated with William Ockham (although he never states that version, and even if non-contradiction rather than parsimony is his favorite weapon in metaphysical disputes), perhaps because it is characterized the spirit of his philosophical conclusions. Opponents, who thought parsimony was being carried too far, formulated an "anti-razor": where fewer entities do not suffice, posit more!"
Source: The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
"The philosopher A.R. Lacey says: Adoption of this principle, though seemingly obvious, leads to problems about the role of simplicity in science, especially when we are choosing between hypotheses that are not (or are not known to be) equivalent. There are often different and clashing criteria for what is the simplest hypothesis, and it is not clear whether a simpler hypothesis is pro tanto more likely to be true; and if not, what justification other than laziness there is for adopting it."
Source: Edupage
Ockham's razor, also called the principle of parsimony, a methodological principle commending a bias toward simplicity in the construction of theories. The parameters whose simplicity is singled out for attention have varied considerably, from kinds of entities to the number of presupposed axioms to the nature of the curve drawn between data points. Found already in Aristotle, the tag "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity" became associated with William Ockham (although he never states that version, and even if non-contradiction rather than parsimony is his favorite weapon in metaphysical disputes), perhaps because it is characterized the spirit of his philosophical conclusions. Opponents, who thought parsimony was being carried too far, formulated an "anti-razor": where fewer entities do not suffice, posit more!"
Source: The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
"The philosopher A.R. Lacey says: Adoption of this principle, though seemingly obvious, leads to problems about the role of simplicity in science, especially when we are choosing between hypotheses that are not (or are not known to be) equivalent. There are often different and clashing criteria for what is the simplest hypothesis, and it is not clear whether a simpler hypothesis is pro tanto more likely to be true; and if not, what justification other than laziness there is for adopting it."
Source: Edupage
One could argue that the answer “God did it” is the simplest hypothesis possible, unfortunately the answer answers nothing. For example, how? What is really being offered is something so complex and vast and incomprehensible that it becomes the extreme end for the razor and where almost any answer would be simpler.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
What possible relevance does occam's razor have in a system predicated upon a supernatural and omnipotent diety? And, having rendered parsimony irrelevant, the theist has no explanation whatsoever for a multitude of design flaws.
DefSkeptic
Registered Senior Member
Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain. It postulates the difficult to explain, and leaves it at that. We cannot prove that there is no God, but we can safely conclude the He is very, very improbable indeed.
Yes this is true. God is obsolete. The need for hope is not obsolete and never will be. People will always feel a need for something better. I fulfill my need for better things by studying classical guitar. Guitar is something I will always practice to perfection until I die, and then maybe I'll become a christion so I can live in heaven forever. Verry unlikley though.
Is God the only thing that gives someone hope? Christians et al might think so but I don't. Hope by definition means the feeling that some desire will be fulfilled. As I see it, God is just one aspect - one concept - of how to fulfill that desire. To say one way is the only way is silly to me. To quote Alan Watts: "If you do not get it from yourself, where will you go for it?" It seems to me people are always seeking sustenance from the outside when it is needed within.
Intelligent Design is a farce, a facade. If the people pushing Intelligent Design weren't all Christian, or were open to the ideas of others, then I would accept it. But the people pushing ID ARE Christians, and they are using it as a way around the Constitution so as they can teach it in public schools. Also, to dispell any rumors, there is no argument, despite Christians saying "You need to hear both sides of the argument." Science goes by "The Big Bang" and Christians go by "Creation". Simple.
Here's an interesting tidbit: Intelligent Design means basically that there was an intelligent, cognizant creator of the universe. In any of their texts, they never give the creator a name. Yet they call the plight of the Railiens rediculous and disgusting, despite the fact that they believe the EXACT SAME THING! The only difference between Railiens and ID freaks is that the Railiens claim the designer was an Alien. So, in essence, they give thier creator a face, and it's not the Lord and God in heaven, so it is shot down by ID freaks.
JD
Here's an interesting tidbit: Intelligent Design means basically that there was an intelligent, cognizant creator of the universe. In any of their texts, they never give the creator a name. Yet they call the plight of the Railiens rediculous and disgusting, despite the fact that they believe the EXACT SAME THING! The only difference between Railiens and ID freaks is that the Railiens claim the designer was an Alien. So, in essence, they give thier creator a face, and it's not the Lord and God in heaven, so it is shot down by ID freaks.
JD
Many scientists will disagree, creationists and non-creationists. They believe that the DNA molecule, which is billions of times more complex than the most powerful computer to date, did not spontaneously form by itself, but was intelligently created by a Master Designer.
For example, Nobel Prize winner Dr. Francis Crick concluded that life could never have evolved by chance on planet Earth. He is a co-discoverer of the molecular structure of DNA, which has become a cornerstone of genetics and is widely regarded as one of the most important discoveries of twentieth century biology. His conclusion is particularly noteworthy since before his statement, he considered himself an atheist.
(‘Directed Panspermia’, Francis Crick & L. E. Orgel, Icarus journal, 19, p. 341-346; also ‘Life Itself’, Francis Crick, 1981. Crick Francis, Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=28338&sctn=1 )
A quote from the book, 'Foolish Faith', Judah Etinger, http://www.foolishfaith.com
For example, Nobel Prize winner Dr. Francis Crick concluded that life could never have evolved by chance on planet Earth. He is a co-discoverer of the molecular structure of DNA, which has become a cornerstone of genetics and is widely regarded as one of the most important discoveries of twentieth century biology. His conclusion is particularly noteworthy since before his statement, he considered himself an atheist.
(‘Directed Panspermia’, Francis Crick & L. E. Orgel, Icarus journal, 19, p. 341-346; also ‘Life Itself’, Francis Crick, 1981. Crick Francis, Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=28338&sctn=1 )
A quote from the book, 'Foolish Faith', Judah Etinger, http://www.foolishfaith.com
At least Watson somewhat admitted it was Rosalind Franklin that “psychologically mobilized” them (cough cough stole her idea, data and gave no credit).
Letter from James D. Watson to Bob Bender (VP Senior Editor, Simon Schuster) (letterhead of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory). September 27, 1995.
"Let's just start with the Pauling thing. There's a myth which is, you know, that Francis and I basically stole the structure from the people at King's. I was shown Rosalind Franklin's x-ray photograph and, Whooo! that was a helix, and a month later we had the structure, and Wilkins should never have shown me the thing. I didn't go into the drawer and steal it, it was shown to me, and I was told the dimensions, a repeat of 34 angstroms, so, you know, I knew roughtly what it meant and, uh, but it was that the Franklin photograph was the key event. It was, psychologically, it mobilised us..."
But let’s forgo that little slip. What has Dr. Francis Crick published of note since? Zero you say? Nothing. Zilch. That’s right. After steeling Franklen’s idea he never published anything ORINANAL and worth mentioning again. Which beings me to my point: The next time you appeal to authority at least try and pick someone worth while. Of course appealing to authority doesn’t prove anything. Either the theory is correct or it is not regardless of the bleating noise in the back ground.
Here’s and even handed article about the discovery of DNA: The Rosalind Franklin question
IS this true? My bike is the perfect piece of information to make a bike. You want to know about my bike take a look at it and there’s the information you need. How tall should it be? Oh I see. What kind of metal – Oh OK. Etc…The same is said about water? H2O is the perfect information about water. When I say H2O I mean "real water" just like I meant a "real bike" not the “word” bike. Yeah, believe it or not but water holds all of the necessary information about itself in itself. And, could safely be said to have arose without a god – hard to imagine huh?
I know a better one and it’s a classic: If you were walking along the beach one day and found a watch you could safely say to yourself that the watch didn't just wash up out of the ocean and that there was an intelligent watch maker.
For an easy to understand book that explains evolution and is a scientific alternative to intelligent design theory - - that we happened by an alien or god(s) see:
The Blind Watchmaker
DefSkeptic
Registered Senior Member
SVRP-
The complexity that you see around today did not arise out of single-step selection. Your example implies that the chances for this particular arrangement is so astronomically small that something intelligent was at work, I would agree, but this is not the case with life on Earth. Life on Earth is a product of cumulative selection, mistaking the two is where your example took a wrong turn.
The essential difference between single-step selection and cumulative selection is this.....In single-step selection the entities selected or sorted, whatever the entity is, are sorted once and for all. In cumulative selection, on the other hand, they 'reproduce'; or in some other way the results of one seiving process are fed into a subsequent sieving, which is fed into.......and so on.
Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as criterion for selection, although human vanity cherishes the absurb notion that our species is the final goal of evolution. In real life, the criterion for selection is always short-term, either simple survival or, more generally, reproductive success. If, after the aeons, what looks like progress towards some distant goal seems, with hindsight, to have been achieved, this is always an incidental consequence of many generations of short-term selection. The 'watchmaker' that is cumulative selection is blind to the future and has no long-term goal.
The complexity that you see around today did not arise out of single-step selection. Your example implies that the chances for this particular arrangement is so astronomically small that something intelligent was at work, I would agree, but this is not the case with life on Earth. Life on Earth is a product of cumulative selection, mistaking the two is where your example took a wrong turn.
The essential difference between single-step selection and cumulative selection is this.....In single-step selection the entities selected or sorted, whatever the entity is, are sorted once and for all. In cumulative selection, on the other hand, they 'reproduce'; or in some other way the results of one seiving process are fed into a subsequent sieving, which is fed into.......and so on.
Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as criterion for selection, although human vanity cherishes the absurb notion that our species is the final goal of evolution. In real life, the criterion for selection is always short-term, either simple survival or, more generally, reproductive success. If, after the aeons, what looks like progress towards some distant goal seems, with hindsight, to have been achieved, this is always an incidental consequence of many generations of short-term selection. The 'watchmaker' that is cumulative selection is blind to the future and has no long-term goal.
yes, life did not evolve by chance, scientist believe it evolved by natural selection.
"Contrary to popular belief, there
is no scientific proof of evolution"
-Judah Etinger
When frogs become princes
is no scientific proof of evolution"
-Judah Etinger
When frogs become princes
That is a very good article, but makes one little mistake. Maybe I'm nitpicking here, but I think a fundamental point on which he basis his opinion on is flawed.
When talking about how intermediates seem to be lacking compared to the ancestors and present, he says:
But this isn't true. No business, whether you're running a casino, making t-shirts or selling crack, starts out with profit. You get certain other intangebles accomplished along the way until you finally turn a profit. As a matter of fact, when you ask for a loan to start your business, you are asked to guestimate your losses for the first three years!
And someone else on this board said that evolution's goal is never in the long term; it's always short-term. This I believe to be true. Becuase if a turtle from a million years ago appears to be less adept than a turtle from 1.4 million years ago, then there was a reason. Think of it this way: Man, who has discovered nuclear power, begins a war using these weapons. Mankind is wiped out. Would it not serve man better if he had scaled back a few notches before completely destroying itself? Maybe this has already happened! (See: Past Civilizations)
JD
When talking about how intermediates seem to be lacking compared to the ancestors and present, he says:
But this isn't true. No business, whether you're running a casino, making t-shirts or selling crack, starts out with profit. You get certain other intangebles accomplished along the way until you finally turn a profit. As a matter of fact, when you ask for a loan to start your business, you are asked to guestimate your losses for the first three years!
And someone else on this board said that evolution's goal is never in the long term; it's always short-term. This I believe to be true. Becuase if a turtle from a million years ago appears to be less adept than a turtle from 1.4 million years ago, then there was a reason. Think of it this way: Man, who has discovered nuclear power, begins a war using these weapons. Mankind is wiped out. Would it not serve man better if he had scaled back a few notches before completely destroying itself? Maybe this has already happened! (See: Past Civilizations)
JD