Intelligent Design is not creationism

tradestrong · Feb 29, 2008

I would normally preface a statement that I'm about to make with "IMO", but since I don't even consider it an opinion, but reality, I'll say this.

Both 2cents and stu's posted links about postulations on life evolving are infinite magnitudes more likely than the oxymoron of an "intelligent designer" needing no "intelligent designer" to create their own existence.

2cents · Mar 1, 2008

thanks, and they are less boring too, which is a fact that's totally lost on the lemmings out there but who cares...

stay tuned for this: http://glast.gsfc.nasa.gov/

tradestrong · Mar 2, 2008

Very cool. I personally love space science. space.com is a fantastic space site if you haven't heard of it. They also have some great message boards that I'm a frequent poster on.

Unfortunately, they're down right now because they're completely revamping the site, so I'm in a bit of a withdrawal without them

.

kjkent1 · Mar 2, 2008

jem: for you people that have no idea what your talking about - here is review that I think touches on the issues

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/23676

kjkent1: To be fair, you should include yourself in the above-mentioned group "that has no idea what your [sic] talking about.

jem: now if you spend some time reading susskind's other interviews - which I have cited in this thread - you begin to see that he if there are not trillions of universes you would have to conclude the universe looks spectacularly designed.

kjkent1: only if you have no idea what you're talking about.

jem: "Leonard Susskind, a founder of the theory and one of its leading practitioners, brazenly lays out this no-boundaries attitude on the first page of his new book. His research, he declares, "touches not only on current paradigm shifts in physics and cosmology, but also on the profound cultural questions that are rocking our social and political landscape: can science explain the extraordinary fact that the universe appears to be uncannily, nay, spectacularly, well designed for our own existence?" (I think the author actually added the for our own existence part - as I have seen the quote without that clause as well)

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/20/news/booksat.php

So far no one has attacked his science. All you do is call names and make crap up. Direct your energies to attack his science. All wait you are not qualified to do so because you are not top flight physicists (if you are say so).

kjkent1: No one needs to attack Susskind's science, because it's entirely consistent with methodical naturalism. Susskind does not propose any metaphysical properties as part of his landscape theory.

jem: It is really quite simply.

kjkent1: Yes, it is: people who post with poor spelling and grammar errors -- seem foolish to those who don't.

jem: 1 If there is only one universe the fact we exist is evidence of design because the universe is freakishly tuned to support life - when it could have come out so many other ways. (trillions)

Or - you could argue there are trillions of universes or more.

Please explain why few if any top physicists in the world have not negatively critiqued the statements made by susskind. (the founder of string theory).

kjkent1: Simple answer -- top physicists understand Susskind, whereas you do not.

The universe seems "freakishly tuned to support life," because we are here to discuss it. This is the fundamental tenant of "Anthropic Principle" which you are misusing to infer a universal creator. All that the anthropic principle is that it was a premise created by its inventor, Dr. Stephen Weinberg, to use as a means to reverse engineer the properties of our known universe that are necessary to support life.

So, it should come as little surprise to any top physicist (or, to any reasonable person) that the conditions calculated by Weinberg fit the conclusion, because that's how Weinberg derived the conditions in the first place -- from the conclusion, rather than from existing quantum field theory or from Einstein's tensor equations.

stu · Mar 2, 2008

What makes me laugh is the infantile thought process which causes jem to state on one hand.... Susskind "as one of the great minds of science" proposing landscape / or countless other universes , thus eliminates an "Intelligent Designer"
But if this "great mind of science" is wrong, then this "great mind of science" would be right to propose an "Intelligent Designer", even though Susskind has actually never said or suggested any such thing about any "intelligent Designer". However Jem has done, so therefore jem thinks Susskind has.

If this is the kind of f*kd up logic and reasoning the Catholic Church encourages you to adopt jem, then quite frankly you are welcome to it, But please, do us all a favor,... keep it to yourself in future.

Thanks
stu

Hansel H · Mar 3, 2008

Quote from stu:

What makes me laugh is the infantile thought process which causes jem to state on one hand.... Susskind "as one of the great minds of science" proposing landscape / or countless other universes , thus eliminates an "Intelligent Designer"
But if this "great mind of science" is wrong, then this "great mind of science" would be right to propose an "Intelligent Designer", even though Susskind has actually never said or suggested any such thing about any "intelligent Designer". However Jem has done, so therefore jem thinks Susskind has.

If this is the kind of f*kd up logic and reasoning the Catholic Church encourages you to adopt jem, then quite frankly you are welcome to it, But please, do us all a favor,... keep it to yourself in future.

Thanks
stu

So, anyway... the real issue is that there is a rational alternative to Santa as a magical explanation for the appearance of presents under the tree - namely that Santa's a fabricated explanation and that presents appear under the tree by way of Mom and Dad and Gramma and Gramps, etc. ; this alternative is supported by direct observations and has never been contradicted by observations.

Yer Designer, on the other hand, as an explanation for the existence of the Universe, can't be dispensed with by means of a more rational alternative. While no direct observations support the Designer explanation no observations contradict it or support a more rational alternative. All explanations for the existence of the Universe are more or less equally groundless in that they are each based on at least one colossal arbitrary assumption ( elegance notwithstanding ).

stu · Mar 3, 2008

Quote from Hansel H:

So, anyway... the real issue is that there is a rational alternative to Santa as a magical explanation for the appearance of presents under the tree - namely that Santa's a fabricated explanation and that presents appear under the tree by way of Mom and Dad and Gramma and Gramps, etc. ; this alternative is supported by direct observations and has never been contradicted by observations.

Then accordingly, "Designer" / God does not have any direct observations and that fact has never been contradicted by observations.
Santa has rational alternatives whilst ID / God does not.. +1 for Santa.

Quote from Hansel H:

Yer Designer, on the other hand, as an explanation for the existence of the Universe, can't be dispensed with by means of a more rational alternative.

You suddenly switched the priority for your reasoning.
Don't you mean, a Designer can't be explained by a rational alternative in the way Santa can?

Quote from Hansel H:

While no direct observations support the Designer explanation no observations contradict it or support a more rational alternative.

Yes they do. This thread has many references and links to observations which would support a more rational alternative than "Designer".

Quote from Hansel H:

All explanations for the existence of the Universe are more or less equally groundless in that they are each based on at least one colossal arbitrary assumption ( elegance notwithstanding ).

Then so is Santa. Explanations for the existence of Santa are more or less equally groundless with that colossal arbitrary assumption that Mom and Dad and Gramma and Gramps, etc must be surrogates for present giving. That does not mean Santa doesn't exist, nor that the Great Goblin of the North Pole hasn't "Designed" things to appear that way. See, I too can turn stuff over when I play by your rules of switching priorities for reasoning..

Ok Hansel, in make-believe we can both play any denial card we want. But really, as there actually is a very large amount of scientific explanation, fact and detail, about the Universe (Santa too), toward possible and feasible origins for them, that is far from groundless if you cared to consider.

It seems what you are doing is to use one standard of reasoning for explaining why Santa can be disregarded. Then instead of using that same standard to reason why "Designer" can be disregarded, you turn it 190 to suggest Designer / God can't be rationalized away.

You observe the Universe, which has a great deal of scientific understanding and achievement to explain it.
You do not observe a "Designer" / God, and have nothing other than groundless speculation for It. Therefore you say science is based on groundless assumption. Go figure.

Hansel H · Mar 3, 2008

Quote from stu:

Stu: Then accordingly, "Designer" / God does not have any direct observations and that fact has never been contradicted by observations.
Santa has rational alternatives whilst ID / God does not.. +1 for Santa.

Hans: I'm saying that the Santa explanation can be supplanted by a more rational explanation for the appearance of presents. We know that at least some of the presents were placed under the tree by Mom and Dad but have no indication that any of the presents were placed there by Santa. This is definitely a -1 for Santa.

____________________

Stu: You suddenly switched the priority for your reasoning.
Don't you mean, a Designer can't be explained by a rational alternative in the way Santa can?

Hans: I'm saying that Santa can be explained away by way of a rational alternative but Designer can't.

__________________

Stu: Yes they do. This thread has many references and links to observations which would support a more rational alternative than "Designer".

Hans: Links? All present explanations for the existence of the Universe require some gigantic arbitrary assumption such as "The Universe has always been." or "The Universe appeared from nothing.", etc. Designer, of course, also belongs in this category but is no less rational than the others because they all defy common sense.

__________________

Stu: Then so is Santa. Explanations for the existence of Santa are more or less equally groundless with that colossal arbitrary assumption that Mom and Dad and Gramma and Gramps, etc must be surrogates for present giving. That does not mean Santa doesn't exist, nor that the Great Goblin of the North Pole hasn't "Designed" things to appear that way. See, I too can turn stuff over when I play by your rules of switching priorities for reasoning..

Hans: Mom and Dad as explanation for at least some of the presents is an observed fact, not an assumption of any kind. Since Mom and Dad are known to be present-givers it's perfectly rational to attribute all present-giving to human cause and to set aside Santa as an explanation for any present-giving pending actual observation of Santa in action.

_________________

Stu: Ok Hansel, in make-believe we can both play any denial card we want. But really, as there actually is a very large amount of scientific explanation, fact and detail, about the Universe (Santa too), toward possible and feasible origins for them, that is far from groundless if you cared to consider.

Hans: There is a vast body of knowledge about the Universe available, but nothing that explains its ultimate origins in anything other than purely speculative terms. There is no proof of these speculations and no proof of Santa.
__________________

Stu: It seems what you are doing is to use one standard of reasoning for explaining why Santa can be disregarded. Then instead of using that same standard to reason why "Designer" can be disregarded, you turn it 190 to suggest Designer / God can't be rationalized away.

Hans: I think I'm consistent in saying that Santa can be set aside ( pending evidence ) because there is an observed rational alternative to Santa, but Designer can't be set aside on the same basis. There is at least one alternative of high probability to Santa but no alternative to Designer that can can be said to be probable or even possible. This is not to say that Designer is either probable or possible. All explanations for the ultimate origins of the Universe are in a different logical class from non-Santa explanations for Xmas presents. This is where the Santa/Designer parallel breaks down.

___________________

Stu: You observe the Universe, which has a great deal of scientific understanding and achievement to explain it.

Hans: Science describes the Universe but doesn't explain it - at least, not in terms of its ultimate origins.

___________________

Stu: You do not observe a "Designer" / God, and have nothing other than groundless speculation for It. Therefore you say science is based on groundless assumption. Go figure.

Hans: I do not observe Designer and have nothing but groundless speculation for it just as cosmologist have nothing but groundless speculation to support their fantasies about the ultimate origin of the Universe.

I don't suggest science in general is based on groundless speculation - absolutely the contrary - but speculations by scientists about the ultimate origin of the Universe are not themselves scientific because they are not falsifiable. At present there are no scientific explanations for the ultimate origin of the Universe; there are merely fanciful speculations some of which are put forward by scientists.

Not everything scientists have to say is scientific.

And yes, I'm aware of some of the seemingly something-from-nothing phenomena of Quantum physics but given that these events occur in the context of an extant Universe-environment it can hardly be said that anything there is truly appearing from nothing.

stu · Mar 4, 2008

Quote from Hansel H:

I'm saying that the Santa explanation can be supplanted by a more rational explanation for the appearance of presents. We know that at least some of the presents were placed under the tree by Mom and Dad but have no indication that any of the presents were placed there by Santa. This is definitely a -1 for Santa.

I'm saying that Santa can be explained away by way of a rational alternative but Designer can't.

And I'm saying you are disregarding things which are known about the Universe which lead to well suported reasoning toward its origins.
There is no indication that any of it was put there by an Intelligent Designer / God /Santa. Just as with Santa, the ID explanation can be supplanted by more rational explanations of science and the nature of the Universe as we observe it.

Quote from Hansel H:

All present explanations for the existence of the Universe require some gigantic arbitrary assumption such as "The Universe has always been." or "The Universe appeared from nothing.", etc. Designer, of course, also belongs in this category but is no less rational than the others because they all defy common sense.

Leave out relevant science, supporting scientific explanations and facts, evidence, theories, postulations, hypothesis, and you should find most things defy common sense.

Quote from Hansel H:

Mom and Dad as explanation for at least some of the presents is an observed fact, not an assumption of any kind. Since Mom and Dad are known to be present-givers it's perfectly rational to attribute all present-giving to human cause and to set aside Santa as an explanation for any present-giving pending actual observation of Santa in action.

Yes, and it seems to me at one particular point (origin), you dismiss many explanations for and of the Universe than ever before were understood, some of which are observed as facts, and are not base assumptions of the kind you say.
Science confirms and continues to explain how many Universe "presents" got there, by what means they were formed, or came about. There is no rational explanation for any -universe creating "present-giving" ID / God / Santa- absent an actual observation or the need of one.

Quote from Hansel H:

There is a vast body of knowledge about the Universe available, but nothing that explains its ultimate origins in anything other than purely speculative terms. There is no proof of these speculations and no proof of Santa.

Speculations about origins of the Universe are of a considerably higher observational and evidence based standard than speculations about ID/God/Santa. Indeed, you suggest that to be so.
ID and Santa first belong in the province of fairy tale and make believe simply because it is known they have no substantial supporting information or evidence. Santa has additional information to confirm origins but, in the realm of fantasy, can still not be explained away.
You cannot dismiss Santa without dismissing ID/God too. As I said, Santa wants grown ups to think they are giving the presents. Only children who have the capacity to believe, can see, know and truly understand Santa. That is the way of Santa's "Design".

Scientific explanations for origins of the Universe are not based on fairy tale, but contain a vast array of hard facts which stand on well grounded knowledge. That provides various well explained possibilities for origin. Non of which contain , need or observe ID/God/Santa. They would if they did.
But no matter, ID/God/Santa/FSM/Unicorns/Gilbert could still have created the Universe, once you choose make-believe as the only source of evidence.

Quote from Hansel H:

I think I'm consistent in saying that Santa can be set aside ( pending evidence ) because there is an observed rational alternative to Santa, but Designer can't be set aside on the same basis. There is at least one alternative of high probability to Santa but no alternative to Designer that can can be said to be probable or even possible. This is not to say that Designer is either probable or possible. All explanations for the ultimate origins of the Universe are in a different logical class from non-Santa explanations for Xmas presents. This is where the Santa/Designer parallel breaks down.

Your consistency appears to be twofold. It ignores observed rational alternative scientific evidence pointing to the contrary of "Designer".

Secondly, you seem to be consistent in changing the priority for reasoning.
As you say, ultimate origins of the Universe are in a different logical class from ID/Santa.
So how come you think it ok to then place scientific information and explanation into a different "logical" class with non-ID/Santa.
Non-ID/Santa is no more logical than any other non-anything you care to imagine. One can decide to require fantasy only to explain Santa or non-Santa, God or non-God, ID or non-ID.
You first must put those imaginations into a logical class by bringing some supportable scientific information and knowledge to them, for or against them. Then science may further show whether they are possible or unfeasible. It works to exclude Santa (down to the fantasy level). It works to include certain strong possibilites for origin of the Universe (down to the fantasy level), which do not include ID/God. It is not about non-origin or non-santa or non-God.

Quote from Hansel H:

Science describes the Universe but doesn't explain it - at least, not in terms of its ultimate origins.

If you say so. But there are nevertheless a few pretty hefty scientific explanations competing for the consensus view on the origin of the Universe. Thing is, the essence of true science doesn't allow make-believe to stand in for facts, proof, evidence or reliable information. Conclusion doesn't include possibilities that have no observational supporting facts or substantial evidence. Things like ID/Santa for instance.

Quote from Hansel H:

I do not observe Designer and have nothing but groundless speculation for it just as cosmologist have nothing but groundless speculation to support their fantasies about the ultimate origin of the Universe.

Again, if you say so. But just because you don't include the things that are known in cosmology which lead to some of those scientific 'speculations' mentioned earlier, does not mean what you say is correct.

Quote from Hansel H:

I don't suggest science in general is based on groundless speculation - absolutely the contrary - but speculations by scientists about the ultimate origin of the Universe are not themselves scientific because they are not falsifiable. At present there are no scientific explanations for the ultimate origin of the Universe; there are merely fanciful speculations some of which are put forward by scientists.

There is no falsifiable scientific conclusion. We agree. To then leap to the position... "therefore there are merely fanciful speculations"... is simply incorrect.
Scientific postulations and theories for origin are extremely well grounded but incomplete. That does not make them fanciful. What is fanciful is ID, God or Santa, non of which have any such groundings whatsoever.
Fanciful- never provides any falsifiable conclusion. Science has the proven ability to produce vast amounts of falsifiable conclusions.
To reduce all science to the grade -fanciful- because there is no falsifiable conclusion on a particular massive subject science is still examining, is at least I suggest, being disingenuous to an extreme.

Quote from Hansel H:

Not everything scientists have to say is scientific

Then when that is the case, what they had to say would not be science, nor would it be scientific.

Quote from Hansel H:

And yes, I'm aware of some of the seemingly something-from-nothing phenomena of Quantum physics but given that these events occur in the context of an extant Universe-environment it can hardly be said that anything there is truly appearing from nothing.

But then a "Designer" / God could or would come from nothing?! Ahh..but there is always the wonder of make-believe. It provides any and all the exceptions imagination can conjure up.

Teleologist · Mar 15, 2008

I would like to focus on the origin of life on earth rather than the origin of the universe. We can't prove that an intelligence exists that created the universe but we do know that an intelligence exists that has the potential to seed distant planets with life. This is human intelligence. If this is a possible future then it is also a possible past. That a human-like intelligence seeded the earth with life is no less rational or scientific than the notion that life originated from non-life through a series of lucky accidents.

In 1973 British molecular biologist Francis Crick and chemist Leslie Orgel published a paper in the journal Icarus suggesting that life may have arrived on Earth through a process called 'Directed Panspermia.' Their abstract in the 1973 Icarus paper reads:

It now seems unlikely that extraterrestrial living organisms could have reached the earth either as spores driven by the radiation pressure from another star or as living organisms imbedded in a meteorite.... As an alternative to these nineteenth-century mechanisms, we have considered Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet.

Stu's previous definition of creationist would include Crick and Orgel. When you broaden the definition of creationt to the point that it includes atheistic evolutionists then you've obviously gone too far. I would like to see Stu come up with a definition of creationist that excludes advocates of Directed Panspermia but includes persons like Michael Behe.