Intelligent Design is not creationism

Teleologist · Nov 9, 2006

Drtomaso wrote:

I have seen hundreds of forum posts in my short life. All were written by humans. When I see your post, I look to my knowledge and experience with forum posts and conclude it was written by a human.

Yes, but your knowledge and experience with forum posts fails to explain the origin of the author of the post. Therefore, by your reasoning you must conclude that the author of the post is supernatural in order to avoid the infinite regress problem.

man · Nov 9, 2006

IMHO john hagelin with his studies on the effect of TM is doing
something very interesting on the boarder of hard science and
spiritual beliefs.

kjkent1 · Nov 9, 2006

Quote from jem:

Ok Kjkent

would you review the debate we had about the Anthopic principle.

-------

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18825305.800.html

I don't have time to review the entire debate from the other thread, however, IMO, you are reading something into the above-referenced article that is not actually present: that Dr. Suskind has found that the existence of a cosmological constant proves intelligent design.

However, Suskind also states the counterargument:

"Why should we presume that all life is like us - carbon-based, needs water, and so forth? How do we know that life cannot exist in radically different environments? If life could exist without galaxies, the argument that the cosmological constant seems improbably fine-tuned for life would lose all of its force. And we don't know that life of all kinds can't exist in a wide variety of circumstances, maybe in all circumstances. It a valid objection."

The point is, that while Suskind may want to "believe" that the universe is intelligently designed, neither he, nor anyone else, has yet to actually construct an experiment to test the hypothesis. Yes, he discusses the possibility of measuring the universe for negative curvature to determine whether it came out of another universe. But, this doesn't prove intelligent design. It only purports to proves the existence of other universes.

And, an infinity of universes does not bring us any closer to proving the existence of an intelligent designer.

What's more, he hasn't been able to actually construct an experiment to test this hypothesis -- the one you're hanging your hat on.

Dr. Suskind's opinions are a mathematician's speculations -- exactly the same as William Dembski's (albeit, from a significantly more respected mathematician) -- but speculation, nevertheless.

So, for the present, ID remains entirely within the realm of faith -- and it will remain therein until a testable hypothesis is proposed, and actually verifiably tested.

Thunderdog · Nov 9, 2006

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Miller's "lecture" is one man's opinion...

You continue to confuse me with right wing dogmatic Christians...

Actually, I do not. I just asked if you took the time to listen to the lecture. And if you did not, then I ask that you please do so as a favor to me, not that you owe me anything. Just the first hour or so, not necessarily the Q&A that followed.

Sardo_Numspa · Nov 9, 2006

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

If science has any agenda at all, it is an agnostic agenda 100%. 100% agnosticism requires 100% open mindedness, with no fear of, nor bias against alternative possibilities.

No offense but you have no idea what you're talking about. A rational scientist should not be agnostic but atheist.

Science ain't about "open-mindedness" (that's some sort of liberal interpretation of what science should be and wholly incorrect), it's about reason and observing the world objectively.

Objectivity tells us that there is no physical evidence of a supernatural being (i.e., God) and therefore the concept is arbitrary (a mind construct) and therefore rejected as such.

Arbitrary constructs are not in the realm in science (does a scientist have to go out of his way to prove every absurd and false claim ever made about anything?) If anyone were to ever provide a bit of actual evidence to point to the existence of god, then it's time to refute it. But until then it's not even worth considering in a scientific context.

"Open-mindedness" and agnosticism are simply irrational skepticism... and neither has any place in science. You are completely mistaken on this point.

jem · Nov 9, 2006

Quote from kjkent1:

I don't have time to review the entire debate from the other thread, however, IMO, you are reading something into the above-referenced article that is not actually present: that Dr. Suskind has found that the existence of a cosmological constant proves intelligent design.

However, Suskind also states the counterargument:

"Why should we presume that all life is like us - carbon-based, needs water, and so forth? How do we know that life cannot exist in radically different environments? If life could exist without galaxies, the argument that the cosmological constant seems improbably fine-tuned for life would lose all of its force. And we don't know that life of all kinds can't exist in a wide variety of circumstances, maybe in all circumstances. It a valid objection."

The point is, that while Suskind may want to "believe" that the universe is intelligently designed, neither he, nor anyone else, has yet to actually construct an experiment to test the hypothesis. Yes, he discusses the possibility of measuring the universe for negative curvature to determine whether it came out of another universe. But, this doesn't prove intelligent design. It only purports to proves the existence of other universes.

And, an infinity of universes does not bring us any closer to proving the existence of an intelligent designer.

What's more, he hasn't been able to actually construct an experiment to test this hypothesis -- the one you're hanging your hat on.

Dr. Suskind's opinions are a mathematician's speculations -- exactly the same as William Dembski's (albeit, from a significantly more respected mathematician) -- but speculation, nevertheless.

So, for the present, ID remains entirely within the realm of faith -- and it will remain therein until a testable hypothesis is proposed, and actually verifiably tested.

you need to reread the article.

and you left out part of the quote where he says it is a valid objection but I do not believe life can exist on the inside of stars. In other words technically possibly but not a solid argument.

Dr. Susskind is stating that if there are not millions of universes or vaccums or "landscapes" in this universe then physics is is only has faith based arguments that counter the conclusiosn one must draw based on the anthropic principle.

kjkent1 · Nov 9, 2006

Quote from jem:

you need to reread the article.

and you left out part of the quote where he says it is a valid objection but I do not believe life can exist on the inside of stars. In other words technically possibly but not a solid argument.

Dr. Susskind is stating that if there are not millions of universes or vaccums or "landscapes" in this universe then physics is is only has faith based arguments that counter the conclusiosn one must draw based on the anthropic principle.

I read the article, and I re-read it. My opinion is unchanged.

String theory landscapes as it relates to anthropic principle, is a mathematical postulate that states: if there is an infinity of universes, then one of those universes must have a cosmological constant necessary to support human life.

This postulate does not prove or disprove intelligent design. It merely provides a mathematical rationale for the existence of our universe and its cosmological constant being hospitable to human life.

With or without string theory landscapes, no one is any closer to revealing the face of God.

ZZZzzzzzzz · Nov 9, 2006

"With or without string theory landscapes, no one is any closer to revealing the face of God."

How would you know the face of God if you saw His face?

Quote from kjkent1:

I read the article, and I re-read it. My opinion is unchanged.

String theory landscapes as it relates to anthropic principle, is a mathematical postulate that states: if there is an infinity of universes, then one of those universes must have a cosmological constant necessary to support human life.

This postulate does not prove or disprove intelligent design. It merely provides a mathematical rationale for the existence of our universe and its cosmological constant being hospitable to human life.

With or without string theory landscapes, no one is any closer to revealing the face of God.

kjkent1 · Nov 9, 2006

Quote from Thunderdog:

Did you listen to the Miller lecture? It's really quite good.

I agree.

ZZZzzzzzzz · Nov 9, 2006

"I have no idea what I am talking about", but you do know what you are talking about.

Thanks for so wonderfully illustrating my point about the dogmatic ET atheists, their lack of open mindedness, their personal agendas, and their lack of real agnostic objectivity....

Quote from Sardo_Numspa:

No offense but you have no idea what you're talking about. A rational scientist should not be agnostic but atheist.

Science ain't about "open-mindedness" (that's some sort of liberal interpretation of what science should be and wholly incorrect), it's about reason and observing the world objectively.

Objectivity tells us that there is no physical evidence of a supernatural being (i.e., God) and therefore the concept is arbitrary (a mind construct) and therefore rejected as such.

Arbitrary constructs are not in the realm in science (does a scientist have to go out of his way to prove every absurd and false claim ever made about anything?) If anyone were to ever provide a bit of actual evidence to point to the existence of god, then it's time to refute it. But until then it's not even worth considering in a scientific context.

"Open-mindedness" and agnosticism are simply irrational skepticism... and neither has any place in science. You are completely mistaken on this point.