Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"It does mean that there is no scientific method of assigning a probability to God's existence, and that no matter how improbable our self replicating molecule may be, it is infinitely more probable than the alternative of God."

I can at least admire the agnostics for their intellectual honesty, but saying "we can't calculate the probability of X, so by default it must be Y no matter how unlikely it is" is just plain ignorance being adopted by default as some kind of truth because there is no way to falsify it.

Better to simply say, we can't figure it out...we don't know, so we aren't going to guess...

That is unless people are worshiping at the alter of Science and the the scientists are leading the mass...

Quote from kjkent1:

The existence of metauniverses is unproven at this time. There are two theories on how they may be created: string theory; the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

String theory provides 10^500 possible universes in which to find life. Each universe could have a different cosmological constant, and produce the same or different outcomes from our own.

The many worlds interpretation provides an infinity of alternate futures, each stemming from wave function collapses. It also makes the notion of randomness irrelevant, because in this interpretation, anything that can possibly happen, actually does happen, in at least one universe.

But, just like with the creator, there's no physical evidence to prove the above-described theories, at this time. So, while we can speculate about what may be true, what we know is true is that we live in this universe and that life exists.

The formation of life may be the product of some sort of clay and polypeptide interaction, or the result of wave bubbles breaking on some ancient shore, but we have yet to duplicate the effort which nature has apparently accomplished: a simple self-replicating molecule.

There is one scientific theory which does explain this event entirely: random chance. A simple self replicating molecule could have been assembled by accident. No matter how improbable that event seems, it is nevertheless within the sphere of physical possibility, therefore it cannot be absolutely dismissed.

And, as the fossil and genetic physical evidence suggests that all life is the product of common descent, this supports the notion of a pure accident.

The alternative: god did it, is, not within the realm of physical probability.

If God is an extra-universal actor, then He is no more scientifically provable (at this time), than are the string theory/many worlds meta universes. All three of these theories are still philosophy.

If God is a part of this universe, then the probability of the spontaneous creation of an organism of limitless power is infinitely more unlikely than is the random chance of abiogenesis. The point being that when you assign limitless possibilities to a selection set, you render all probabilities of the existence of God infinitely improbable.

Returning to the basket of green and red apples, what is the probability of pulling a green apple from a basket filled with an infinity of red apples:

Zero. Which doesn't mean that the green apple isn't in the basket. It does mean that there is no scientific method of assigning a probability to God's existence, and that no matter how improbable our self replicating molecule may be, it is infinitely more probable than the alternative of God.

 

[armoured saint]

I'm with Zzzz on this one..

If you can't assign a probability to event "A" how can you assert that in comparison the probability of event "B" is infiniely greater

 

[Turok]

Quote from armoured saint:

I'm with Zzzz on this one..

If you can't assign a probability to event "A" how can you assert that in comparison the probability of event "B" is infiniely greater

I generally agree, but not completely in this case ...

The IDers are telling us that our life forms are too complex to have "just happened" and for this reason a far more powerful force (ID) *had to be* at work. Well, IF complexity is the issue, the probability of a more complex creature (ID) is obviously different than a less complex one.

JB

 

[armoured saint]

Quote from Turok:

I generally agree, but not completely in this case ...

The IDers are telling us that our life forms are too complex to have "just happened" and for this reason a far more powerful force (ID) *had to be* at work. Well, IF complexity is the issue, the probability of a more complex creature (ID) is obviously different than a less complex one.

JB

We are on same page.. i don't buy "ID". Everything I see smacks of uninterested random process.

 

[yip1997]

Quote from kjkent1:
Returning to the basket of green and red apples, what is the probability of pulling a green apple from a basket filled with an infinity of red apples:

Zero. Or, more precisely, 1/infinity -> 0.

Which doesn't mean that the green apple isn't in the basket. It does mean that there is no scientific method of assigning a probability to God's existence, and that no matter how improbable our self replicating molecule may be, it is infinitely more probable than the alternative of God.

How do you prove that it is more probable than the alternative of God?

Lt 1/x -> 0 and Lt 1/y -> 0

There is no way to compare 1/x and 1/y until you know the relationship between x and y.

Do you know a function regarding the probability of existence of God? No!

It is impossible for us to understand infinity (at the current time). We understand mathematically the concept of approaching infinity but not infinity. I have never seen any scientific method of comparing infinity.

We can compare 1/x and 1/(2x) with x -> infinity because the two objects being compared has a well-known relationship.

 

[I am...]

Quote from Turok:

I generally agree, but not completely in this case ...

The IDers are telling us that our life forms are too complex to have "just happened" and for this reason a far more powerful force (ID) *had to be* at work. Well, IF complexity is the issue, the probability of a more complex creature (ID) is obviously different than a less complex one.

JB

The thing is, the ID creature is not your friend, not interested in your learning anything about it's methods, finding it out, or releasing yourself from the 'Hotel California' it made for you.

The body serves this purpose well. The ID creature makes it, permitting into your awareness, almost exclusively, only those things which testify to the reality of it's cherished illusion. Yet the body is just another part of the illusion, and to ask it to explain the illuison to you is no different than asking the illusion to explain itself. If you ask the illusion, it will be more than happy to furnish you with answers. But they will all be self-serving.

The result is an unquestioning, "We are here", or, "Welcome to reality" type attitude. These are repeated like mantras. Little do you know the ID creature has you by the balls, exactly where it wants you.

Jesus

 

[armoured saint]

you score a minor point here, yippee, but b/w stu and kj your so far behind take one of those miracles to catch up, got any miracles left in that code?

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from Turok:

HH:
>The possibility of life forms based on different logics,
>different chemistries, or even different natural constants
>can't be ruled out ...

Agreed.

>but at this time it's only a fanciful idea with no scientific basis.

No more fanciful than the two primary concepts (Creation/ID and Evo) battling it out regarding our planet. Obviously an omnipotent designer could have made us quite comfy at the core of the sun and I chuckle when as a community we look around and say 'oh looky, there may be water on that planet -- making it possible to support life' ... LOL actually meaning 'support life *like us*' (carbon based).

>There is no way ( at least at this time ) to test whether
>or not life could evolve in universes in which the natural
>constants are much different from our own or whether
>or not life based on principles other than those on which
>terrestrial life is based could occur in this universe.

And previous to our arrival, there would have been nor more (or less) of a way for some other life form somewhere to perform the same test regarding our form. I see it as a statement without a point.

>It's quite possible we are alone.

Yes it is.

JB

Re "No more fanciful..." : Agreed - no more fanciful, especially given that degrees of fancifulness are pretty difficult to deal with.

Re " obviously an omnipotent designer...": Agreed again, but there could be a Creator God that isn't omnipotent and that had to work within limitations. I believe you've made this point yourself at least once.

I think the terms 'omnipotence' and 'perfection' are nonsensical when applied by us to a deity.


Re " And previous to our arrival.. ": Again, agreed, except that we are the fact and these other life forms are mere possibilities of indeterminable probability. As the known living fact we enjoy a privileged position in considerations of the meaning of the Universe; for instance, it is possible that the geocentric POV is not based on madness or ignorance but on reasonable consideration as a possibility given the lack of evidence to the contrary. I suggest that pending evidence to the contrary we should conduct ourselves as though we do occupy a privileged position in the scheme of things and that we should take ourselves more seriously than reductionists and cynics suggest we should.

This doesn't mean we should adopt an attitude of certainty or arrogance - just that we should assume that we may have an assigned responsibility as stewards of this miracle planet and that we may be, as Heidegger suggested, "the keepers of being".

Am I preaching to the converted here?

 

[armoured saint]

Jesus H your insane LOL

privileged position in the scheme of things ?

we occupy a privileged position on this planet, maybe. any other assertion is arrogance

"pending evidence to the contrary" we should consider ourselves damn lucky monkeys

 

[I am...]

Quote from armoured saint:

Jesus H your insane LOL

privileged position in the scheme of things ?

we occupy a privileged position on this planet, maybe. any other assertion is arrogance

The IDcreature is hiding something from you. Oh, you have a privileged position alright, walking upon a thin crust of molten rock. Hmmm...what's underneath the surface? Shall we peek?

You may want to put your armour up for this one.

The Sounds of Hell

These sounds symbolize the feelings that predate time and space. These are the ancient feelings that make the world seem like a "good idea". These feelings are still there, only they are buried under deep layers of the mind we sometimes call the 'unconscious'. These feelings allow the IDcreature to take advantage of the situation, and sell you the idea of a 'Hotel California' type paradise. The world is a 'solution' to the problem of these feelings. It is a 'buffer' against the heat of these feelings.

Notice however, that the feelings these sounds symbolize, are all being felt on the surface of the planet. They are just not felt all at once, by everyone, all the time. Rather, the planet serves as a time release, spreading these feelings out in between "good times". Bodies are actually buffers against deep feelings of guilt. And yet, they do not avoid self-sabatoge from deep levels of the mind. Concepts that demand punishment mete themselves out every which way. And that is all that is really happening on the surface. The mind that makes this world is truly suffering and in great pain. 'Truly' is a relative term here. It believes in pain.

The behavior on the surface is largely motivated by the feelings deep in the subconscious. The shifting of blame around is the most obvious manifestation of it. The fear of God is also obvious, and the ominous feeling that God might attack.

Listen now, to the feelings that give rise to this world, what the world is masking, and what runs the world this very day. Understand why I so often call this world "hell".

Jesus