Intelligent design / creationism

[Freethinker]

Originally Posted by Aquagem

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.

Actually you have it exactly backwards. I very specifically aligned "ORGANIZED" with human effort while the surrounding natural arrangement is "highly complex". As such an auto, being made by humans, is "ORGANIZED" while the raw materials are "highly complex".

But other than that, yes you are correct. "an automobile is a great simplification over the ("highly complex") structure of unrefined ore in twelve countries, chemicals from crude oil to make plastic, and so forth".

Originally Posted by Aquagem

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.... It's hard to use the word "design" without the implication of a "designer".... 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 is my point actually. we recognize a watch as being of intentional intellectual interaction because it SIMPLIFIES, not because it shows random complexity. The sum total of the metals used are far less complex than the sum total of the ores and rocks from which they came. Less total mass, less total number of elements, highly simplified patterns.

Taking again Stonehenge. If you took an overhead pict of a large area which included Stonehenge and were to catalog everything. What would stick out as Organized and Simplified (designed)? The mass of rocks scattered on the ground at various depths in the soil with no predictable arrangement? Or the few rocks in a limited area with predictable arrangements?

We recognize Stonehenge as Stonehenge not because of the highly complex randomized rocks around the entire area. But because of the simplified, organized few. We recognize DESIGN based on the few organized, not the overall complexity. In fact it is only because of the LACK of design we see in the entire rest of the geography surrounding the few stacked stones, that we recognize the INTENTIONAL DESIGN of the rocks we call Stonehenge.

[Freethinker]

Originally Posted by IrishEyes

wondering what Freethinker will post next

As predictable as I am?

[Freethinker]

Originally Posted by pmaust

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

Yes I have met and had discussions with him. I understand that he has become a Deist. Yes that was a surprise.

[geko]

Originally Posted by IrishEyes

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?

I think this is a good point you're making here Irish. Attempting to convert other people away from a religious belief system is something i stopped a long time ago. Not least of which is that i find it fruitless because religous beleivers are so tightly locked into their belief system by faith that it's damn near impossible to snap them out of it, but also that after seeing a quote by a 17th century philosopher and religious thinker (Baruch Spinoza) ive tried to live by it (difficult as it may be at times). The quote is that "I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them"

But having said that, after reading in your post that "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", i find myself in a bit of a quiver.

It sounds to me as though you're trying to qualify religion in the vein that "yes, it's been hard, we've done some probably regrettable things but things are getting better" This is rubbish, sorry. Religion stoll, punished, tortured, murdered, waged war and made people live in fear for centuries. They done this for absolute power over the masses, nothing more. This i find damn near inexcusable. Not least of which because they done it by promising people their greatest desires yet having no intention of delivering it to them. How rude can you get?

[Freethinker]

Originally Posted by IrishEyes

Only a very select few are here for thepure joy of sharing all of the knowledge the rest of us are seeking.

Finally, you say something factual about me! (TONGUE IN CHEEK!)

Originally Posted by IrishEyes

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.

There is one VERY BIG difference however. When "horrible things" are done "in the name of science", it is NOT because of any specific tenet which some agreed source of Scientific laws has published. While when "horrible things" are done "in the name of religion", if the religion is revelations based and the "horrible things" that are done are spelled out in that source of revelations, then that religion IS DIRECTLY to blame. e.g. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and witch burnings.

Originally Posted by IrishEyes

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.

Boy, so many things being admitted to here! Don't know where to start! Wish I had the time to go back and find all the times you have claimed that science can prove your religious beliefs. And now you specifcally state that the two will supply contradictory answers and one might be "unwilling to accept that the other side may be right".

Originally Posted by IrishEyes

Are you more right because you claim logic? Or am I more right because I claim faith? Does it really matter?

Ask the kids that die every year because a parent chose faith over logic.

"Claiming" logic does not prove that they reached a logical conclusion. Nor does applying a logical process to erroneous info produce an accurate answer. But plain and simple YES, logic will virtually always increase the chance of an accurate answer over a faith based approach.

Originally Posted by IrishEyes

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?

Love.

[infamous]

I'm sure that most of you know by now that I am a believer, and I will confess my faith to anyone willing to listen. I fear however, that allowing debate about Gods existence, pros. or cons. on this forum might distract from any usefull advances in scientific discussion. I love to talk about my faith, but it will not gain anything if there are no accepted grounds or foundations on which to build. A discussion about God will go nowhere if both parties can't agree at least on his existence. The relevance of God in scientific debate is not "at least in my opinion" neccessary for us to understand scientific principles. At the least we need to develope some tolerance of one another"s views without calling some witch burners, or others nonbelieving evil doers if we are to continue to allow these topics. Personally I'm here at this forum to study science, I can wait for Sunday to go to church.

[TINNY]

still, i haven't found a successfull answer to the watchmaker argument. matter came from nothingness during what we call the big bang. Nothing before that. Even time is created by the big bang. something moving necessitates time, and thus cause-and-effect. Bertrand Russell once argued that the watchmaker argument could also deny god because there must be a god-creator and the creator of the god-creator. But that argument only applies when there is cause and effect, or time. the creator of time is eternal, free from cause and effect, manifesting absolute freewill to create.

[TINNY]

Originally Posted by Stargazer

As for the design issue, I hope there are some who believe in intelligent design who could show me exactly what gives away design by an intelligent entity. When is an object designed by an intelligent designer? What are the characteristics?

When only a certain set of results are obtained in a situation of random possibility, repeatedly. Like the specific 23 amino acids. (Um, not sure tho!)

Some of them say that the entire universe is designed. Interesting. Add to this that we design things too, and all you have is a universe where everything is designed, and nothing else - ever. So, how is it then possible to see the difference between design and non-design, when the former is the only thing that exists? (Except for the designer/creator itself, of course, since that would cause uncomfortable problems with the whole concept.)

i think my previous post satisfies your question. Saying that we are also designers is just semantics. Typical when there is cause and effect. We would do something, and that results in something else. And thus, we are designers.

[Tim_Lou]

the law of probability only acts as a theory in this situation.
there is no statistical or experimental data to confirm a certain probability...

it is not known if probability such as the chance of formation of living beings is right or wrong.

[pmaust]

Originally Posted by Freethinker

Yes I have met and had discussions with him. I understand that he has become a Deist. Yes that was a surprise.

The Deist part is what surprises me. But, it raises a question in my mind. Personally, I am comfortable with being a man without a belief. I am cautious and skeptical about evolution yet I don't believe that there is a god. Nor, have I ruled out the possibility of either theory. But, if there were to be some scientific breakthrough that happened tomorow that totally ruined the possibility that living things could not possibly occur as a result of natural selection or random processes would I assume there must be god? No! It would simply be, oh well, back to the drawing board.

In all fairness to Mr. Flew, it may be that he is a Deist more metaphorically than actually. I have no idea since I haven't read anything from him which discusses the matter.

The theory of evolution is a good theory. It is a work in progress however. Sometimes, I think we ask to much of it. It seems that now days we want answers right now! In some cases it appears that folks want to exploit the theory for their own personal agendas.

The science is still young. In another hundred years our views of evolution may be radically different than they are today. If we could live so long, we very well could look back and see how primative our thinking was back then. Look at how many years elapsed between Newton and Einstein. They both taught us about gravity but in very different ways. Interestingly enough, we still don't know everything there is to know about gravity.

Anyway, it's late. My brain is fried and I'll probably look back at this post tomorrow in total horror. Don't be too hard on me!

Cheers!

Paul