Intelligent design / creationism

[infamous]

I'll accept an answer based on the law of probability.

[Aquagem]

Originally Posted by Freethinker

But Stonehenge is a ORGANIZED presentation of rocks. the otherwise highly complex random arrangement of material is organized into a much SIMPLER form. One with limited parameters. The complexity of randomness is removed by the intellectual effort. Not enhanced.

So they want to claim Complexity as the cornerstone to prove what is actually a SIMPLIFYING process of intellectual involvement.

It sounds like you're saying that an automobile is a great simplification over the highly organized structure of unrefined ore in twelve countries, chemicals from crude oil to make plastic, and so forth. Rather than just using "simple" and "complex", how about "separated", "refined", "distilled", or other terms that better fit human activities, which actually move material and energy sources away from thermodynamic equilibrium. The more a thing can decay from a highly ordered state, the more physical WORK has to be put into it to get it there. Whether you think Stonehenge is simpler or more complex, intention and work are behind the order we observe. And that is more like what the ID folk are pushing.

Pressed on the issue, and educated about thermo equilibrium, they would probably be able to accept that the solar system, say, represents an ordered system that is far from equilibrium, perking along with electromagnetic energy, gravitation, and the usual stuff of physics 101. But then we come to the eye, or the brain, and they insist there has to be a DESIGNER, exercising INTENTION, and using INTELLIGENCE to make one. But in saying this, they are following the oldest of human traits: putting a human face on anything you don't understand. It's hard to use the word "design" without the implication of a "designer". That's one of the hard-core anthropocentric terms in our language. They can't get beyond the semantics, and are enmired in the metaphor of human design. Since their god is mainly a big GUY, HE has to act like we do, and since things like watches almost never happen without a designer in nature, by extension, neither can anything like life.

That, by the way, is the entire motivation behind Dennett's book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea. The dangerous idea is that the unique environment of Earth is such that it is especially conducive to the development of self-organizing, evolving systems. That is, the eye isn't designed by an intelligent designer, but, rather, acquires design by virtue of the evolutionary process. ID creationists love to shout that complexity can't increase through natural action -- it has to be designed and built intentionally. Dennett calls of a wealth of modern research and thought to make a strong case for the production of complexity in the absence of intention -- it's the nature of evolution, which is the nature of the Earth system.

[Aquagem]

Originally Posted by infamous

Our designer was the Big Bang, every thing that we are and ever hope to be was determined at that one point and instant of our past. The greater question is; from what and where did the Big Bang originate? Any ideas?

All ideas on the answer to that question are pure speculation. Maybe we should take the path of least resistance, like we have in every prior age and situation and just say, "God (that is, MY GOD) did it." And that settles it. Anything we don't understand is an Act of God, and when we find out there's no need to invoke that reason because there's a natural explanation that holds up to scrutiny, we just quit mentioning it. Simple.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Aquagem

we just quit mentioning it. Simple.

No need for Hypography, then!

[infamous]

Hello Aquagen; I'm not really ready to give up the search so easily, maybe we'll learn some new facts in the near future that will give us a better understanding of pre-Big Bang events. I admit that the forcast for such information looks slim, but lets not through in the towel just yet. Thanks Aquagen.

[IrishEyes]

Originally Posted by Tormod

No need for Hypography, then!

Finally!! YOu admit it. I've been waiting MONTHS for somebody to say that!!

Wait a second though... If there is no need for Hypography, then what are we all still doing, sitting at our desks (or on our couch ) typing away, hitting enter, checking to see what's new, wondering what Freethinker will post next, trying to figure out how Aquagem got so darn smart, wishing GAHD posted more often, hoping alex adds another list or poll, waiting for Aki to log on BEFORE midnight my time, praying that Tinny made it through the tsunami, being amazed by Tim's math skills and Bo's all-around skills, and thinking Tormod is nuts to put up with all of us!

Who did I forget? I'm sure a bunch of you. Know that my heart is in the right place, even if my brain temporarily forgot your names...

[Aquagem]

Originally Posted by infamous

Hello Aquagen; I'm not really ready to give up the search so easily, maybe we'll learn some new facts in the near future that will give us a better understanding of pre-Big Bang events. I admit that the forcast for such information looks slim, but lets not through in the towel just yet. Thanks Aquagen.

Maybe I didn't get the tongue-in-cheek font working correctly...

I'm with you all the way. I just think this could be another in the string of "explanations" that fall into the category of "the God of the Gaps" in our knowledge. I'm not giving up the search, either!!

[IrishEyes]

Maybe I didn't get the tongue-in-cheek font working correctly...

Quite frankly, that's one of the biggest problems at this site. I've been begging Tormod for months to add voice recognition software so I could tell when Freethinker is joking, and he'll know when I am, as I so very often forget to add my smilies. Well, with so many new ones to choose from, it's getting easier, until Tormod starts screaming about bandwidth...

I think one of the reasons we are all here is to learn. Only a very select few are here for thepure joy of sharing all of the knowledge the rest of us are seeking. (TONGUE IN CHEEK!) I have listened to arguments from both sides, and I really don't see how either side will "win", or why there has to be a battle. Many wonderful things have been done in the name of 'science', as well as many horrible things. Many wonderful things have been done in the name of religion, as well as many horrible things. Will science and religion ever peacefully coexist? Probably not, at least not as long as there are people ON BOTH SIDES that are unwilling to accept that the other side may be right. Are you more right because you claim logic? Or am I more right because I claim faith? Does it really matter? It's not my life's goal to convert you, or anyone else that has no desire to hear my religion. Why should it be anyone else's goal to make sure that I am converted?

[pmaust]

Anybody ever hear of this guy? Anthony Flew. Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Freethinker]

Originally Posted by infamous

I'll accept an answer based on the law of probability.

OK, let me try the "north of north" thing for you again.

We exist in our particular timespace continuum. Are there others? We don't know. And it is highly "probable" that we not only never will, but plain and simple CAN'T ever find out. It is "probable" that if there are others, their physical laws could be so different as to lack any ability to share them. Thus no interface between them can happen. (though gravity wave info between branes offers some possibilities) No common data exchange possible.

If we "look back" into our timespace, we observe an event we call the Big Bang. Just as if we were to "walk (back)" towards the north pole we would reach the point we observe as the North Pole. And just as the North Pole is the furthest NORTH we can walk (any steps after reaching it requires that we walk SOUTH), the furthest back we can "see" is the BB. Once we go back in time to the BB, the only direction that exists in our timespace is FORWARD in time.

Thus no THING exists prior to our timespace/ the BB, because THINGS (our physical existence and everything THING in it) came into existence at the BB.

Just because some particular set of words can be used to form an interogatory sentence, does not mean that there is an answer to it. Just like the other thread asking whether an all powerful being can create a rock so large it can't lift it. Was it structured as an interogatory sentence? Yes it was. But does it have an answer? Nope. It is NOT a valid question.