Intelligent Design is not creationism

Quote from Ether64:

I am new to this board and conversation, but a few things I noted in just the first few posts I observed, which I am responding to. I'd like to see Teleologist post an intelligent response without quoting everyone else, because quoting everyone else does not tell me what he/she thinks.

Secondly, I can understand why the ID people lost in court. The true motives of their theology was clear. My problem with them is that they took God's intelligent design, and tried to remove God from the picture, so as to make it more acceptable to those who don't believe. They basically denied Him. So I agree...they should have been busted in court because they were operating in deception, and our calling in Christ is not for that purpose.

Secondly...it's a deception to attempt to state that Intelligent Design has no designer. That's just asinine. How can it be intelligent design, with no source for that intelligence? So of course they would be found out for the deception. I don't know why so-called "christians" think that they can win people over with lies. It doesn't work.

Some things are not meant for everyone, and to try to force those things into the lap of people they were never meant for is ridiculous. It's like those zealots trying to convert everyone. It's not happening. That is not God's call on anyone's life. There is an appointed timing for everything and for everyone, and if it's not your time to "get it"...it's just not your time. Maybe it will never be, but it's not for me or anyone else to dictate.

I was in a discussion about that last night with some friends. One said to another, speak to me on my level; and the other said, I speak the truth...you can accept me or reject me.

I saw both points of view. One was saying, I want to understand you...speak to me in a way I can understand. The other said, I'm speaking what I was told to speak. If you cannot understand it, it is not meant for you at this time. So it is with all of us. Therefore, to perpetuate a lie to give understanding for those who were not meant to understand is foolishness.

As to the quote from lkh:"Evolution has purpose and direction. Survival."

I agree. The purpose of evolution is the "survival" of mankind's desire to be self sufficient. To believe that a big bang occurred and suddenly all this intricate life was created without a designer, is tantamount to equating life to be shat out of a wormhole somewhere. You know...no offense, but someone mentioned a drunk stumbling around....Maybe in some unknown universe this could have occurred, and his upchuck became the fodder for our existence. :D

I mean after all, if things just came to life out of nothing...who's to say life didn't evolve from upchuck? I mean you can find any number of small creatures in the waste of the world, and they will start thriving, and recreate themselves and feed and seemingly evolve into other creatures...and you support the idea that you came from a possible circumstance like that? What are you afraid of?

They say that those that hold to God are weak, dependant beings, but I say, those that run from Him, are even weaker, because they cannot admit their need as a human...as a person, and no doubt, this pattern of running from things and/or people is a constant "truth" in their lives because of a lack of an ability to really connect on an honest level. It takes strength to admit weakness because it requires vulnerability, and weak people cannot acknowledge their vulnerability, so they put up a wall of defense to any ideology that requires such submission.
More...



I think you miss the point.

It is one thing to say I believe that God, the Father, and God the Son existed before the start of time and they created the universe.

I can base this belief on quotes from the new testament and old. However I can't expert someone who does not read the bible the way I do to think I have offerend them any proof.

However, to examine the cosmological constant or other constants and say wow that force is amazingly fine tuned to allow life. If it were slightly more or less powerful the universe would have blown apart of collapsed.

I wonder what the odds of that force falling just within these fined tuned parameters is. It is over 100s of billions to one.

Is there any chance the universe hit those parameters randomly.

Scientists from hawking to susskind say without some other physical explanation the answer is no it can not be randomly the odds are way to slim.

So now we are seeing science create unprovable theories to to combat the design inference.

Mind you that is not proof of the divinity of Jesus Christ or God and who knows maybe someday they will prove a second universe or even billions but for now I am quite content knowing top scientists have to consider design as a possible reason for our existence.
 
Quote from jem:

I think you miss the point.

It is one thing to say I believe that God, the Father, and God the Son existed before the start of time and they created the universe.

I can base this belief on quotes from the new testament and old. However I can't expert someone who does not read the bible the way I do to think I have offerend them any proof.

However, to examine the cosmological constant or other constants and say wow that force is amazingly fine tuned to allow life. If it were slightly more or less powerful the universe would have blown apart of collapsed.

I wonder what the odds of that force falling just within these fined tuned parameters is. It is over 100s of billions to one.

Is there any chance the universe hit those parameters randomly.

Scientists from hawking to susskind say without some other physical explanation the answer is no it can not be randomly the odds are way to slim.

So now we are seeing science create unprovable theories to to combat the design inference.

Mind you that is not proof of the divinity of Jesus Christ or God and who knows maybe someday they will prove a second universe or even billions but for now I am quite content knowing top scientists have to consider design as a possible reason for our existence.
More...

What point am I missing? So far as I can tell...your point, if there is one...is not clear.

You can't expert someone???? You lost me on that. And...I have to read the bible the way you do? How do you read the bible, if you read it? You offered proof? Where?

First...the cosmological constant you refer to...who or what made that constant, constant? You have completely lost me with this because frankly...it's not clear what side you're on here. If it? Who or what is the "it" you refer to?

And what fine tuned parameters are you talking about, because what you said sounded like jibberish to me. It made no sense. Help me figure it out. Please.

And I like how the scientists you are so eager to quote, say without this (theory) ______ parameters, there's no other explanation. This means then that just because they can't explain it, their current hypothesis must be correct? Are you kidding? Surely if you follow the "scientists" as much as you seem to profess here, you'd know that their theories change like the direction of the wind. Theories they had years ago have been altered and adjusted according to "new data" and is everchanging and "evolving". Yet you choose to believe in something so obviously fallable by their own admissions via the constant change in their theories, and constant statements like: "without some other physical explanation..."

Recognize...it's all a belief system. You choose, apparently, to hold to the theology of imperfect man as self sufficient, because dependancy is a scary thing for most people. Your theory and belief then, is that everything is a cosmic accident in which you have no control, and if you feel secure in that, more power to you. I'd rather recognize and be linked to the One who is actually in control, because then I know that my life is directed, versus a random series of cosmic accidents as I stumble blindly along. It's simple really.
 
Quote from jem:

Kj said

Your logic is incorrect, as follows:

If you can't falsify #1, because you don't believe you are competent to argue good science, then you can't argue that #2 is the default, because you don't actually know whether #1 is false -- you're simply relying on your faith that it is not true.

Response -
Are you familiar with expert testimony at trial. Coming from someone who claims to be an attorney your argument seems designed to play to the gallery even though you know you are wrong.



Real Physicists have evaluated this question and some state the universe looks designed. I have given you quotes from nobel prize winners and the father of string theory.

Since neither of us have advanced training in physics and years of study neither of are experts on this subject. (if you wish to be considered an expert put forth your credentials) Consequently our opinion of whether the cosmlogical constant indicates design are of little consequence.

However we do not not need to be competent to testify as an expert to make powerful and correct arguments about what the experts say. I thought every lawyer understood this point. Apparently you are not familiar with expert testimony.

Quite simply some of the best minds in physics are saying the world looks designed. You have no standing to entirely discount their findings.

(sometimes with a caveat of multiple universes)

----------------
#2 is scientifically unprovable, because it is magic and magic is beyond the scope of any scientific proof. So, #2 cannot be the default, even were #1 and #3 not considered.

Rsponse

This is a juvenile denial of facts. If You seem to totally disregard that quantum physics has been used to assess probiliites across all sorts of disciplines.

Nobel prize winners disagree with your statements and claim the univese looks designed. Yet you still think your outdated view of probablity theory turns of science into magic. The irony is that you are arguing like a religious person here.

First of all you are wrong and completely overruled by the applicatiion of quantum mechanics to the field. You also do not understand how the arguments are constructed. You do not need to have multiple trials if you already know how the univese works. One can quantify the how likely something is to happen using quantum mechanics, It is how we can send space ships into orbit around other planets.


Why do you continue to argue from such a silly posture.

There no reason for me to address the rest of your arguement since science renders your points outdated.
More...


I wasn't aware that alcohol consumption was permitted in Bradenton on Sundays. That's very good news for you, I'm sure.

Edit: I just have to acknowledge your comment about quantum mechanics being used to send space ships into orbit around other planets. That's spectacularly funny! Either you are on your second 5th of Bushmills/Jameson, or you're 15 years old.
 
James Bond wrote:
"Something looks designed" does not mean "something is designed."
More...

One of the possibilities for why something looks designed is that it may in fact be designed. There is no reason why the suspicion of design can't guide an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing.
 
Quote from stu:

... and when you do actually investigate observe, use logic and test, design looks exactly like evolution.
More...

Excellent point. Let's try the gedanken:

Suppose that today, Lenny Susskind walks into Fermilab and tells the engineers that he has developed a testable hypothesis for the creation of a new universe, which can be tested in the super collider.

As part of the hypothesis, the collisions can be set up to theoretically determine the cosmological constant of the new universe in advance: if the constant is set too high the universe will expand and no coalescence of matter will take place; if the constant is set too low the universe will collapse back in on itself. But (as the baby bear said to the mommy and daddy bears), if the constant is set "just right," the new universe will evolve galaxies, stars, planets, fundamental elements similar to that of our own universe, and even biological life might eventually evolve under suitable conditions.

There is just one little problem. While we can measure the moment of first existence and expansion of this new universe, we can never measure the interior, nor can anyone or anything on the interior of the new universe, ever measure anything external to it. This is because the new universe is created in a new space-time continuum, such that information from each respective universe can never reach the other.

So, the engineers proceed with the experiment, and from everything that we are able to measure, Dr. Susskind's hypothesis is confirmed -- and so we "infer" that the new universe will evolve somewhat like our own -- and call the experiment a qualified success.

Now, let's switch places and put ourselves INSIDE this new universe. What do we observe:

1. A big bang.

2. The evolution of galaxies, stars, planets, elements, life, us.

3. A cosmological constant which appears consistent with a small range of values which will permit life such as ours to eventually evolve and observe the cosmological constant as we measure it.

4. No evidence of design.

So, in our experiment the universe is actually designed, but we only see evolution, because we simply cannot view what is beyond our universe's event horizon to prove otherwise. Scientifically, all we can observe is the result: an evolving universe which evolves us as a reasonable outcome of existence.

And, here's where, if you're a design advocate, you shout, "EUREKA@! Thank you for proving that design is possible."

My response is as follows:

1. So what? It is still no more nor less likely that what I have just described actually happened, because it is impossible to calculate the probability of this having actually happened, given the lack of knowledge about what actually preceded our own big bang.

2. In this little thought experiment, the "creator" is Dr. Leonard Susskind, not "God," and this begs the question of, "Where did the good doctor come from?"

Are we merely the creation of the scientific experiment of an unknown number of previous mortal creators from other universes, all of whom owe their respective existence to some prime creator who has existed forever? Maybe so, but once again, so what? We can't prove it either way.

Or, are we the product of the occasional increase in entropy which occurs in certain locales as a part of the natural turbulence which exists in any universe? Can't prove this, either.

And, at some point, we may reasonably ask which is the simpler answer: (a) that somewhere and somewhen, there was an original creator who has existed eternally and who started the whole ball rolling from a point of maximum complexity, or (b) that universes have existed forever and the occasional turbulence which is inherent within a universe, occasionally evolves into a thinking being who is capable of observing the universe in which he/she/it exists?

Everyone here gets to answer this question for him/herself. But, no one can prove either answer, scientifically, because we are not capable of conducting a verifiable experiment beyond the confines of our own event horizon.

Should this situation ever change, then we can investigate scientifically. Until then, it's all just speculation. Some of it is very interesting and thoughtful speculation, which hypothesizes quantum field measurements that may (and, I emphasize, may) someday be able to push back the information event horizon to slightly before the moment of the big bang. But today it's just speculation -- not science -- and there is simply no scientific proof favoring any particular answer over another.
 
Stu wrote:
... and when you do actually investigate observe, use logic and test, design looks exactly like evolution.
More...

But are we observing design by evolution or evolution by design? Evolution and design can co-exist. Things can be designed to evolve. Evolution can be designed. Evolution can be used by design.
 
Quote from Teleologist:

Stu wrote:


But are we observing design by evolution or evolution by design? Evolution and design can co-exist. Things can be designed to evolve. Evolution can be designed. Evolution can be used by design.
More...

But you can't prove design from observation. Whether or not it co-exists with evolution is irrelevant to science.

To get back to the original topic, design = creation.
 
Quote from james_bond_3rd:



To get back to the original topic, design = creation.
More...

Not exactly. Better to say: Design = Made, as in, made up

Whatever is made will pass away: The time, the space, the stars, the worlds.

Whatever is Created remains forever, unchanged, unchangeable.

Evolution is of design because it's about change, adaptation, learning. You will find a common design: to die. None of it truly makes any sense.

Design is not made more real by the millions/billions of years it persists. Time is relative, and it will end.

Space and time are the evidence of faith, "proof" of things not seen. When faith is withdrawn from them, they disappear. Then faith itself will disappear, having been part of the "design".

The "designer" is the Son of God, asleep. All that has been proven is that the Son of God is capable of long, drawn out, detail oriented, persistent dreams. Relative to reality, it happened in an instant, was given a remedy, and is long gone.

It is finished.

Jesus
 
James Bond wrote:
But you can't prove design from observation.
More...

I never claimed design could be proved by observation.

James Bond wrote:
Whether or not it co-exists with evolution is irrelevant to science.
More...

Anything that can be investigated via the scientific method is relevant to science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top