Dynamical Systems and Intelligent Design

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between dynamical systems, fractals, and the concept of Intelligent Design (ID). Participants explore whether the complexity of natural patterns necessitates an intelligent designer or if such complexity can arise from non-linear processes without intelligence. The conversation touches on mathematical concepts, natural phenomena, and philosophical implications regarding the existence of design in nature.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that perfect geometric shapes require an intelligent mind to conceive and create, while non-linear systems can produce complex patterns without intelligence, exemplified by the Mandelbrot set.
  • Another participant challenges the claim that fractals and Mandelbrot sets occur in nature, suggesting that while shapes may appear similar, they do not represent true fractals, and questions the necessity of intelligence in natural phenomena like rainbows.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that the perception of shapes, such as circles, is influenced by scale and that deviations from perfect geometry are subjective judgments based on measurement.
  • One participant asserts that the existence of complexity does not inherently imply design, proposing that everything can be explained without invoking intelligent beings, equating ID with other theories like Evolution as constructs of human understanding.
  • Another participant emphasizes that our perception of rainbows as circular is an illusion created by perspective, arguing that the chaotic nature of light does not conform to perfect geometric shapes.
  • Some participants propose that the forces of nature, such as gravity and electromagnetism, may account for the prevalence of certain shapes, suggesting that the appearance of design could be a result of these fundamental forces rather than intelligence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the necessity of an intelligent designer in explaining natural phenomena. There is no consensus on whether complexity in nature requires intelligence or if it can arise from non-linear processes.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference mathematical concepts and natural occurrences, but the discussion remains open to interpretation regarding the definitions of fractals, the nature of geometric perfection, and the implications of perspective in understanding natural shapes.

  • #31
Originally posted by Zero
Why would anyone "accept" the existence of something with no logical or evidential support for it?
Because you can be skeptical of some things but not of everything. Ultimately everything can be doubted, including logic and evidence, but that doesn't mean everything must be doubted. So how do we pick what to doubt and what to accept without questioning? Or, specifically, why should we accept "logic" and "evidential support" when there's no logic or evidential support that those things exist or are true?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Originally posted by confutatis
Because you can be skeptical of some things but not of everything. Ultimately everything can be doubted, including logic and evidence, but that doesn't mean everything must be doubted. So how do we pick what to doubt and what to accept without questioning? Or, specifically, why should we accept "logic" and "evidential support" when there's no logic or evidential support that those things exist or are true?
Because if we ignore those two things, then there is no way to make any coherent statement about anything at all. If literally anything can be true, then there is no basis for claiming that anything can be true.
 
  • #33
Originally posted by confutatis
...but that doesn't mean everything must be doubted. So how do we pick what to doubt and what to accept without questioning?
How (or who?) do we decide what can and can't be accepted/questioned? Seems to me to be a very arbitrary way to pursue knowledge, leading to no logically consistent answers.
 
  • #34
And, whether you like it or not, this thread goes to show that scientific-style evidence and logic is more respected than the "anything goes" philosophy of the woowoo crowd. After all, just look at the creationists struggling to find any link to science to legitimize their position.
 
  • #35
Originally posted by Zero
And, whether you like it or not, this thread goes to show that scientific-style evidence and logic is more respected than the "anything goes" philosophy of the woowoo crowd.

I always find it strange when people talk about science in a passionate tone. Isn't that anti-scientific?

After all, just look at the creationists struggling to find any link to science to legitimize their position.

I tend to notice something far more interesting: only scientists and their enthusiasts worry about that. To the rest of us, it sounds like a silly debate between a PhD and a three year-old child. That scientists get the better of it shouldn't surprise anyone. That they actually bother is really hard to believe.
 
  • #36
Why do scientists worry about creationists? Years ago I had lunch with my coworkers. This was in the midwest US and there were two software people and an engineer besides me. The talk got around to evolution and I was the only one at the table who believed in it. These were all college graduates!

Scientists worry about creationists because the US population is gradually sliding into superstition, and the creationists are supplying the grease.
 
  • #37
Originally posted by confutatis
I always find it strange when people talk about science in a passionate tone. Isn't that anti-scientific?



I tend to notice something far more interesting: only scientists and their enthusiasts worry about that. To the rest of us, it sounds like a silly debate between a PhD and a three year-old child. That scientists get the better of it shouldn't surprise anyone. That they actually bother is really hard to believe.
Do you realize that the creationists are coming close to forcing their views to be taught in classrooms? THAT'S why we worry about their idiocy, because they insist on spreading it to children.
 
  • #38
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Why do scientists worry about creationists? Years ago I had lunch with my coworkers. This was in the midwest US and there were two software people and an engineer besides me. The talk got around to evolution and I was the only one at the table who believed in it. These were all college graduates!

I'm not sure why disbelieving evolution is a problem. Our species has survived millions of years believing in gods and spirits; it could well be argued that belief in the supernatural is an evolutionary advantage. Why change it and risk our future?

Scientists worry about creationists because the US population is gradually sliding into superstition, and the creationists are supplying the grease.

Superstition may be like sexual desire: even though some minority strongly disapproves of it, it has been hardwired in people's genes by millions of years of evolution and, other than short periods of strong repression, there's not much that can be done about it. Which is a good thing, at least in the case of sex.

Creationists, without realizing it, are just carrying out what their genes programmed them to do.

Originally posted by Zero
Do you realize that the creationists are coming close to forcing their views to be taught in classrooms? THAT'S why we worry about their idiocy, because they insist on spreading it to children.

If you think creationism is the worst idiocy children can be exposed to, you haven't watched TV in a long time. I don't see a lot of scientists complaining of dumb TV programming.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
Confutatis, I have to say thanks for the fresh perspective. I think you are right. I think what you're seeing is just individual people getting fired up over issues that they have a strong opinion about for whatever reason. These "specialists" get lost in the trees and always think their issue is the most important.

Of course, I think that a proper education in science is extremely important. But I'm not sure how you reconcile science that contradicts religious beliefs, in a free society. It's an unfortunate battle because the evidence is clear(in these forums at least) that those that get involved in this matter can't help but invest personally in it and therefore become close-minded to some extent. It's just human nature.

I'm having to be careful myself about getting too uptight about it which is why I like this perspective from Confutatis. The other day a female acquaintance asked me if I believed in god. When I didn't answer the way she wanted she got a frown on her face and said sarcastically "oh and I bet you believe in evolution too don't you?" After I said "yes", she preached to me about Jesus for a while. The whole time I'm fearfully thinking to myself "This women can vote!"

Even though I'm not militant about this topic, thanks again for the perspective. Some people need it more than I
 
  • #40
Originally posted by confutatis



If you think creationism is the worst idiocy children can be exposed to, you haven't watched TV in a long time. I don't see a lot of scientists complaining of dumb TV programming.
You've got me there...besides 1-2 shows, I haven't watched TV on a regular basis since 1997.
 

Similar threads

Designing a Perfect Lifeform to Replace Humans
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Undergrad A wager of £20 on the nature of primes
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Is Human Design Truly Intelligent?
  • · Replies 255 ·
9
Replies
255
Views
23K
I could really use some help picking my optional module [GameDev]
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Want a book/notes that cover this syllabus (dynamical systems).
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate The Blessings of Dimensionality and Hilbert's 6th Problem
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Is my fictional Solar System stable and realistic?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
Robert J. Sternberg's Triarchic Theory of Intelligence
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
22K
Graduate Is there a formula for these circles?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
Toplogy book for study of dynamical systems
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K