You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
and then why dont we discuss this quote that came from Stu. He though it was proving his point but it proved mine.
Susskind:
"I cannot put it better than Steven Weinberg did in a recent paper:"
Steven Weinberg
" I have heard the objection that, in trying to explain why the laws of nature are so well suited for the appearance and evolution of life, anthropic arguments take on some of the flavor of religion. I think that just the opposite is the case. Just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the wonderful adaptations of living forms could arise without supernatural intervention, so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator.
If you are unfamiliar with the subject I will condense it for you.
Lately the fine tunings of the universe have been admitted by top physicists to be evidence of design. We could not have been this fine tuned by chance.
However string theory has allowed some physicists to speculate there are at least 10 to the 500 universes. And it takes almost that many universes to make our fine tunings not look designed but a chance happening.
Susskind:
"I cannot put it better than Steven Weinberg did in a recent paper:"
Steven Weinberg
" I have heard the objection that, in trying to explain why the laws of nature are so well suited for the appearance and evolution of life, anthropic arguments take on some of the flavor of religion. I think that just the opposite is the case. Just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the wonderful adaptations of living forms could arise without supernatural intervention, so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator.
If you are unfamiliar with the subject I will condense it for you.
Lately the fine tunings of the universe have been admitted by top physicists to be evidence of design. We could not have been this fine tuned by chance.
However string theory has allowed some physicists to speculate there are at least 10 to the 500 universes. And it takes almost that many universes to make our fine tunings not look designed but a chance happening.
Quote from jem:
why don't you show me why the quote is out of context.
Two reasons listed in order or importance.
1. I think you haven't read Hawkings book and all that that implies.
2. I have to type out a few pages which may not be productive. If you had the book I can say look at page so and so provided we had the same edition or say look at sentence # so and so in chapter so and so. And we could go back and forth more efficiently.
But I'm sure that if you had read the book, you'd smirk at IDers who used that quote. You might fire off an email to the ID sites that keeping rehashing that propaganda saying, "well boys, I think you should use something else all things considered."
Quote from jem:
and then why dont we discuss this quote that came from Stu. He though it was proving his point but it proved mine.
Susskind:
"I cannot put it better than Steven Weinberg did in a recent paper:"
Steven Weinberg
" I have heard the objection that, in trying to explain why the laws of nature are so well suited for the appearance and evolution of life, anthropic arguments take on some of the flavor of religion. I think that just the opposite is the case. Just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the wonderful adaptations of living forms could arise without supernatural intervention, so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator.
If you are unfamiliar with the subject I will condense it for you.
Lately the fine tunings of the universe have been admitted by top physicists to be evidence of design. We could not have been this fine tuned by chance.
However string theory has allowed some physicists to speculate there are at least 10 to the 500 universes. And it takes almost that many universes to make our fine tunings not look designed but a chance happening.
It doesn't prove your point at all. Think about it. There is catagorical denial of design by both Susskind and Weinberg. In simple terms they're saying, "what may appear to be designed happens to just be natural and has a natural explanation." But the best denial of design comes from Darwin and Wallace - things evolve without supernatural intervention - i.e. randomly.
But let's say that something looks designed. Where do we go from there? Are we done? Wouldn't we by necessity need to take it a step further? Like, how was it designed. Nevermind who or what designed it. That may be beyond our ability. And frankly may not be testable. But how should be testable at least, right?
Hey, try this on for size - coevolution. How would you rationally work design theory into it other than to blanketly say that things are designed to co-evolve? 'Cause not all things co-evolve. And you gotta see some of the things that co-evolved and some of the tricks one of the co-evolved use. For example Orchids that has long nectar tubes but have no nectar yet attract long tongued insects for the purpose of pollenating. Kinda makes you wonder about the designer. What, with all that deceit going on.
Don't want this challenge to get lost. So I hope posters won't mind if I repost it periodically.
Quote from D2.0:
Here's a little challenge for Iders to put the usefulness of ID in perspective:
SHOW a few USEFUL and TESTABLE predictions using ID theory that CANNOT be made by NON-ID sciences such as Physics, biology, evolutionary biology, chemistry, etc.
Then perhaps we will all see the point of ID better.
Already done.
Evolutionary theory predicts necessarily a new species to evolve from human beings, but they are unable to prove the prediction, give any time table, project what that new species will be, blah, blah, blah...
Human beings have had various mutations from time to time, but none have advanced into anything resembling the beginnings of a new species...
Evolutionary theory predicts necessarily a new species to evolve from human beings, but they are unable to prove the prediction, give any time table, project what that new species will be, blah, blah, blah...
Human beings have had various mutations from time to time, but none have advanced into anything resembling the beginnings of a new species...
Quote from D2.0:
Don't want this challenge to get lost. So I hope posters won't mind if I repsrt it periodically.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Already done.
Evolutionary theory predicts necessarily a new species to evolve from human beings, but they are unable to prove the prediction, give any time table, project what that new species will be, blah, blah, blah...
Human beings have had various mutations from time to time, but none have advanced into anything resembling the beginnings of a new species...
Got a million years?
Anyway, Humans are still evolving. Check this out:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8812
And useful, testable predictions can be made in the short term about where we're going next. And they'll be testable for sure.
Your nonsense is simply not testable in any meaningful way. For a number of reasons. For one, we could go extinct in the time it takes for a new human species to evolve.
Try something useful. Something that shows design theory has a use other than to prop up the faith of those who believe in a designer. You know, something that shows it's actually science.
Edit: the other thing that occurs to me is that while you seem to accept that humans evolved, how is it that you can make a prediction based on design theory that they won't continue to do so? Unless you believe they didn't evolve in the first place or that their primate cousins were designed to evolved into a final stage which we call the homo sapien.
Going to have to ask for some proof. Which of course you ain't got unless it's that special Vedic knowledge in orginal Sanskrit.
Oh, what's that? My proof? Oh yeah. well since they have evolved and are still evolving, barring an extinction level event, there doesn't appear to be anything stopping the homo sapien from evolving another species off its branch. Unless you know and can prove something that is preventing it.
Quote from D2.0:
It doesn't prove your point at all. Think about it. There is catagorical denial of design by both Susskind and Weinberg. In simple terms they're saying, "what may appear to be designed happens to just be natural and has a natural explanation." But the best denial of design comes from Darwin and Wallace - things evolve without supernatural intervention - i.e. randomly.
But let's say that something looks designed. Where do we go from there? Are we done? Wouldn't we by necessity need to take it a step further? Like, how was it designed. Nevermind who or what designed it. That may be beyond our ability. And frankly may not be testable. But how should be testable at least, right?
Hey, try this on for size - coevolution. How would you rationally work design theory into it other than to blanketly say that things are designed to co-evolve? 'Cause not all things co-evolve. And you gotta see some of the things that co-evolved and some of the tricks one of the co-evolved use. For example Orchids that has long nectar tubes but have no nectar yet attract long tongued insects for the purpose of pollenating. Kinda makes you wonder about the designer. What, with all that deceit going on.
well now you are wrong because you are not aware of susskinds other quotes.
Quote from jem:
well now you are wrong because you are not aware of susskinds other quotes.
Yeah? Ok. But you should know, I know all the ones you're likely to pull out. How do I know? Seen them before when tioling with IDers. But if there's new ones I haven't seen - aka updates - all I have to do is peruse a pro ID site and read how they're improperly and tirelessly using them. Because IDers ain't gots no credibility of their own such that they are forced into reinterpreting, gleaning and twisting the research from real scientists things which may support their worldview. Yup, I said worldview since ID is nothing more than an ideology. Junk science.
Maybe one day it won't be. A or the Designer shows up and shows the "how." But for now it firmly and deeply finds itself at the bottom of junk science pile.
Quote from D2.0:
It doesn't prove your point at all. Think about it. There is catagorical denial of design by both Susskind and Weinberg. In simple terms they're saying, "what may appear to be designed happens to just be natural and has a natural explanation." But the best denial of design comes from Darwin and Wallace - things evolve without supernatural intervention - i.e. randomly.
But let's say that something looks designed. Where do we go from there? Are we done? Wouldn't we by necessity need to take it a step further? Like, how was it designed. Nevermind who or what designed it. That may be beyond our ability. And frankly may not be testable. But how should be testable at least, right?
Hey, try this on for size - coevolution. How would you rationally work design theory into it other than to blanketly say that things are designed to co-evolve? 'Cause not all things co-evolve. And you gotta see some of the things that co-evolved and some of the tricks one of the co-evolved use. For example Orchids that has long nectar tubes but have no nectar yet attract long tongued insects for the purpose of pollenating. Kinda makes you wonder about the designer. What, with all that deceit going on.
I have time to address this now.
I will ask you and then give you the answer.
1. What is the natural and scientific explanation for the appearance of design.
The answer is the speculation that there are billions and billions of universes or the Landscape.
2. Is that speculation provable or observable in our universe. Or is more like faith used to combat the appearance of design.
Right now it is faith.
3. What was Weinberg saying about Wallace and Darwin?
That he thinks the speculation about billions of universes, if someday proven, will allow us to say these fine tunings are not evidence of design.