How about ID is creationism? I don't know why we veered OT for so long. But how can there be design but no creation? It defies logic.
Oh, wait. It was designed but never created. What exists today is just an accident...
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
How about ID is creationism? I don't know why we veered OT for so long. But how can there be design but no creation? It defies logic.
Oh, wait. It was designed but never created. What exists today is just an accident...
You never stop with the b.s.
He still is the star witness. Here is part of the intro to his book.
I think the design enthusiasts are on better ground when it comes to physics and cosmology. Biology is only part of the story of creation. The Laws of Physics and the origin of the universe are the other part, and here again, incredible miracles appear to abound. It seems hopelessly improbable that any particular rules accidentally led to the miracle of intelligent life. Nevertheless, this is exactly what most physicists have believed: intelligent life is a purely serendipitous consequence of physical principles that have nothing to do with our own existence. Here I share the skepticism of the intelligent-design crowd: I think that the dumb luck needs an explanation. But the explanation that is emerging from modern physics is every bit as different from intelligent design as Darwin's was from "Soapy" Sam Wilberforce's.
The debate that this book is concerned with is not the bitter political controversy between science and creationism. Unlike the debate between "Darwin's Bulldog" Thomas Huxley and Wilberforce, the present argument is not between religion and science but between two warring factions of science-those who believe, on the one hand, that the laws of nature are determined by mathematical relations, which by mere chance happen to allow life, and those who believe that the Laws of Physics have, in some way, been determined by the requirement that intelligent life be possible. The bitterness and rancor of the controversy have crystallized around a single phrase-the Anthropic Principle-a hypothetical principle that says that the world is fine-tuned so that we can be here to observe it! By itself I would have to say that this is a silly, half-baked notion. It makes no more sense than saying that the reason the eye evolved is so that someone can exist to read this book. But it is really shorthand for a much richer set of concepts that I will make clear in the chapters that follow.
But the controversy among scientists does have repercussions for the broader public debate. Not surprisingly, it does overflow the seminar rooms and scientific journals into the political debates about design and creationism. Christian Internet sites have leapt into the fray:
The Bible says:
"From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and the sky and all that God made. They can clearly see His invisible qualities-His eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God."
This is as true today as it ever has been-in some ways, with the discovery of the Anthropic Principle, it is more true now than ever before. So the first kind of evidence that we have is the creation itself-a universe that carries God's signature-a universe "just right" for us to live in.
And from another religious site:
In his book "The Cosmic Blueprint," the astronomer professor Paul Davies concludes that the evidence for design is overwhelming:
Professor Sir Fred Hoyle-no sympathizer with Christianity- says that it looks as if a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology.
And the astronomer George Greenstein says: As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency, or rather Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a supreme being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially created the cosmos for our benefit?
Is it any wonder that the Anthropic Principle makes many physicists very uncomfortable?
Davies and Greenstein are serious scholars, and Hoyle was one of the great scientists of the twentieth century. As they point out, the appearance of intelligent design is undeniable.? Extraordinary coincidences are required for life to be possible. It will take us a few chapters to fully understand this "elephant in the room," but let's begin with a sneak preview. The world as we know it is very precarious, in a sense that is of special interest to physicists. There are many ways it could go bad-so bad that life as we know it would be totally impossible. ...
I have produced experts in astrophysics who say there is evidence of design. I have quotes from Susskind saying they are serious scientists. So I can see why you wish to end the argument.
You said there is no evidence of design. I have produced experts who say there is evidence of design.
You said there is no evidence of design. I have produced experts who say there is evidence of design.
You "talked" directly with the author?
I thought it was an email...
I'll assume the above post was directed at me.
I wrote an email to Dr. Leonard Susskind, Ph.D yesterday, complimented him on his book, restated the basic concept and asked him if I understood it.
The professor said that "you've got it."
Obviously, I can't prove this transaction, but I'm personally satisfied that it occurred.
Sorry, but an email is not talking.
Not saying you are lying, as you told everyone that you never lie.
LOL!
Are you a descendant of George Washington?
Forgive, me I have a difficult time thinking someone never tells a lie, even George Washington...
Of course, Clinton is a lawyer, and we all know how he explained not lying...
I thought it was an email...
I'll assume the above post was directed at me.
I wrote an email to Dr. Leonard Susskind, Ph.D yesterday, complimented him on his book, restated the basic concept and asked him if I understood it.
The professor said that "you've got it."
Obviously, I can't prove this transaction, but I'm personally satisfied that it occurred.
Sorry, but an email is not talking.
Not saying you are lying, as you told everyone that you never lie.
LOL!
Are you a descendant of George Washington?
Forgive, me I have a difficult time thinking someone never tells a lie, even George Washington...
Of course, Clinton is a lawyer, and we all know how he explained not lying...
I pardon your mistake, and I would expect that you would have no problem swearing on a Bible (that of course means nothing to you) that you never lie...
Oh my goodness, you crack me up...
Oh my goodness, you crack me up...
Oh, snivel, snivel...
and to think I thought you would be grateful and thanking me for pointing out an obvious error, you know, after incessently positioning yourself as some kind of professional man to whom exactness is important as not to mislead anyone...
After all, you wouldn't want someone to think you actually talked to the man, or made the whole thing up.
No, I don't think you ever lie. Really, I don't. Truly I don't. No never, ever, ever...
Bwaahaaahaaahaaaaaaa.....
Again, when I think you have topped yourself, now you position yourself as one who think he knows what is amusing to all rational people...
Oh man, oh man...
p.s. Waiting for the next obvious comeback from you...clock is ticking.
and to think I thought you would be grateful and thanking me for pointing out an obvious error, you know, after incessently positioning yourself as some kind of professional man to whom exactness is important as not to mislead anyone...
After all, you wouldn't want someone to think you actually talked to the man, or made the whole thing up.
No, I don't think you ever lie. Really, I don't. Truly I don't. No never, ever, ever...
Bwaahaaahaaahaaaaaaa.....
Again, when I think you have topped yourself, now you position yourself as one who think he knows what is amusing to all rational people...
Oh man, oh man...
p.s. Waiting for the next obvious comeback from you...clock is ticking.