Is Human Design Truly Intelligent?

[Tisthammerw]

This is not correct, the ID person fills the gaps with god, which is outside natural causes, (e.g., the supernatural). Human or material based intelligent design is NOT part of ID philosophy

Intelligent design (at least when applied to biology) doesn't actually identify the designer, only that artificial intervention took place. The artificial creation of life does not require the supernatural.

Take for example the common mistake that ID folks accept that life on Earth first came from another place in universe, this is an organic based argument and within theory of explanation by organic evolution

Not really, for the simple reason that we do not know what the designer is like or what the designer is composed of; ergo the origins of the designer are untestable. We can rationally infer design without knowing where the designer came from. Take for example the thought experiment of finding a nuclear power plant on Pluto. Who built it? Where did the designer come from? Such questions in this case are unanswerable, but that doesn't stop us from rationally inferring design.

 

[Evo]

Tisthammerw, are you aware of what the stated goals are of the ID proponents? It's no secret, it's discussed on their own website since it was exposed. It's religious faith that they are trying to masquerade as science. You'd have to be cut off from the outside world to not be aware of the ruse.

Governing Goals

>To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

>To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

You do know that "The Wedge Strategy" is from the Discovery Institute, the inventors of Intelligent Design?

 

[Tisthammerw]

Tisthammerw, are you aware of what the stated goals are of the ID proponents? It's no secret, it's discussed on their own website since it was exposed. It's religious faith that they are trying to masquerade as science.

Really? Please tell me what is so religious about life on Earth being artificially created.

You'd have to be cut off from the outside world to not be aware of the ruse.

I'm tired of both sides demonizing the opposition. I suppose these IDers are actively employing deception to introduce religion into classrooms?

Governing Goals
>To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
>To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
You do know that "The Wedge Strategy" is from the Discovery Institute, the inventors of Intelligent Design?

The Discovery Institute is not the inventor of intelligent design. Intelligent design has been around long before this institute existed. And if this web page's Wedge strategy is identical to the institute you are referring to, how about getting it straight from the horse's mouth rather than getting it from a completely different source that may/may not represent the Discovery Institute? I'm not saying the web page you quoted is wrong, only that it would be better to get Discovery’s claims from the actual source. Why did you not get this description from Discovery's actual website? Or perhaps even read what they have to say regarding this issue? And though it may be easy to find a religious group who wants to push ID, I can just as easily find an atheist/agnostic site that supports evolution. Does this mean evolution is atheistic? Of course not. Additionally, attacking the motives of a theory's adherents is not the same as attacking the theory itself. The stated motive of Newton in forming some of his theories was to promote belief in God. Does this make Newtonian mechanics religious? No. Why not? Because the content of those theories is not religious. Similarly, there is nothing inherently religious about intelligent design (at least when applied to biology).

Do some ID adherents have religious motives? Sure. Do many ID adherents have scientific motives, believing ID is the best scientific theory? Absolutely. Is it possible that people at the Discovery Institute want to fight against materialism by putting forth what they believe to be a legitimate scientific theory (intelligent design) that conflicts with orthodox evolution? I think so. Some (e.g. Behe) have no religious objections to evolution, but nonetheless believe orthodox evolution is scientifically deficient in some way.

BTW, see post #146 when you get a chance.

 

[Evo]

Really? Please tell me what is so religious about life on Earth being artificially created.

That would be the part about God.

I suppose these IDers are actively employing deception to introduce religion into classrooms?

That's correct.

The Discovery Institute is not the inventor of intelligent design. Intelligent design has been around long before this institute existed.

The current "Intelligent Design" that we are discussing in this thread is the creation of Stephen Meyers & Phillip E. Johnson, creators of the Discovery Institute. "The term intelligent design came up in 1988 at a conference in Tacoma, Wash., called Sources of Information Content in DNA," claims Stephen C. Meyer, co-founder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture, who was present at the phrase's re-creation, which he attributes to Of Pandas and People editor Charles Thaxton. The phrase appeared in the first edition Of Pandas and People in 1989, which is considered the first modern Intelligent Design book. The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book Darwin on Trial. Johnson went on to work with Meyers, becoming the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture and is considered the "father" of the Intelligent Design movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design

And if this web page's Wedge strategy is identical to the institute you are referring to, how about getting it straight from the horse's mouth rather than getting it from a completely different source that may/may not represent the Discovery Institute?

As I said you can find it from the Discovery institute's own website. I got this link from the Discovery Institute's website. http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/wedge.html

If you think that ID is valid science, then please list some of their "proofs" that invalidate the findings that support evolution. What, can't find any? Oh, that's because they don't have any. No one needs to discredit the people that started ID, that's just icing on the cake, ID itself has failed to pass scientific muster. With the ruling in Australia, the ID movement is failing miserably.

 

[Les Sleeth]

This is not correct, the ID person fills the gaps with god, which is outside natural causes, (e.g., the supernatural).

You are generalizing, probably because of your fear of religion interfering with science rather than looking at the issues involved. The religious don't own this topic, it is a question a lot of thinking people are pondering. In THIS thread, for example, we have been talking about whether it is logical that some sort of universally-present consciousness has been part of creation. The opening post was (as I pointed out earlier) to ask if humans are intelligently designed. The author did not frame the discussion in terms of Christian ID, so what gives you right to come into his thread and decide we are all talking about Christian ID?

If you are so freaked out by the term ID, then let's change the term to NIA, natural intelligence assistance. The difference between that and ID would be, those who want to discuss NIA cannot be trying to justify a particular religion's decryptions, predictions, or claims, and no supernaturalism allowed. The concept and question simply is, might some sort of intelligence be involved in the development of creation.

. . . if ID philosophy is anything, it is anti-materialism in terms of first cause. Now, I have no problem with folks having a belief in the ability of a supernatural agent using ID to create something as a first cause-effect, it is basic thinking to many religions based on belief (e.g., an anti-materialism philosophy), but let us not call this thought process "science"--it is not. And, of course, this is the reason why ID folks have been so busy trying to get local school boards in the USA to "redefine science" to allow the supernatural first cause to be something that science can study -- surely you are aware of this anti-scientific religious based political movement that is going on at this time in history to redefine science to allow anti-materialism to be a subject of valid science ? -- take a look at the Dover PA trial now in progress:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/30/MNGVNA3PE11.DTL

You are generalizing, grossly sir. Yes, there are Biblical creationists trying sneak their silly beliefs in. But here's the other side of it. You know that anti-materialist effort you are critical of? Well, materialists have been using the cloak of "science" to sneak their beliefs in, and one thing they are doing is exaggerating the evidence they have for evolution. I don’t know if you have followed this thread, but the bald truth is, the mechanisms science claims can account for the evolution of all life (genetic variation and natural selection) have never been observed doing anything more than making superficial adjustments to an organism. So tell me, why is every textbook on the planet packed with descriptions like what I took from a UC Berkeley website describing "lifting functional constraints through duplication":

"Even when a feature is absolutely necessary for survival it can be modified by natural selection for a different function if it is duplicated. For example, globin is a truly ancient protein. Billions of years old, it was present in the common ancestor of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungi. Globin performed an essential job: binding and carrying oxygen. You might imagine that natural selection would lock globin into that one job; however, through duplication and divergence, different copies of the globin molecule were adapted for different roles."

Now tell me, how does the author know natural selection achieved that? Natural selection has never been observed achieving such sophistication, so it is an unproven assumption which rather than being taught as theory is presented as fact. The student reading that doesn't know it is an unconfirmed assumption, and so universities are turning out all sorts of "believers" who think when they talk evolution their beliefs are supported by the facts (as I once did).

To me anyway, it is nauseating to witness the hypocrisy going on, where on the one hand you have certain (not all) holier-than-thou scientists banding together to fight the evil IDers, while they themselves pretend to have evidence they really don’t in order to propagate physicalism in the guise of science. Further, they employ McCarthyish tactics to, as Tisthammerw points out, demonize one side, and then wrap oneself in the scientific flag so they can force their theory down the world’s throat.

To someone like me who loves science, it is sad to see what’s being done to its reputation by physicalist extremists.

 

[Les Sleeth]

. . . are you aware of what the stated goals are of the ID proponents? It's no secret, it's discussed on their own website since it was exposed. It's religious faith that they are trying to masquerade as science.

That may be true of that group, but it isn’t true of all people challenging the claims of evolution, and it doesn’t even represent all Christian views. It is a separate issue from what creationists are trying to sneak in as science from whether or not science is exaggerating its claims. And for a lot of people, that is the objection that is growing stronger by the week.

You'd have to be cut off from the outside world to not be aware of the ruse.

It’s just because you don’t want religion involved in anything that you are willing to overlook the scientism ruse. Believe me, I don’t want religion in there either, but scientism becomes religion when it start propagating its belief system over the facts. Do you really think you’ll be happier with a secular religion institutionalized into our society?

Here’s what I say the evidence is really like on the science side. Let’s say you went to a planet that was so hot you had to have an air conditioner to survive. Once there you meet air conditioner repairmen who have an evolutionary theory to account for all the air conditioners found around the planet. That is, they claim air conditioners originated by organizing themselves into a functioning system, and then evolved by adapting to temperature conditions.

Their evidence that the air conditioners evolved is that all contain thermostats, which do cause air conditioners to adapt. They say, “see, there is an adaptive mechanism, so that’s what is most likely the cause of evolution.” And then to explain how the first air conditioner got organized, they throw parts of the conditioner in a box and observe a magnet and a spring hooking up, and then say, “see, the magnet and spring have self-organized, and since they are part of the building blocks of an air conditioner, that is most likely how the first air conditioner got organized.”

Now air conditioner repairmen are geniuses at working with air conditioners, and the whole planet depends on them. So when they claim they have all the evidence needed to explain the origin and development of air conditioners, a great many people accept it as true based repairmen’s demonstrated ability overall. What people don’t realize is that the repairmen, enthralled with their own profession, have elevated air conditionerism to lofty heights, and are now preaching it as a religion, not as a fact.

There, Evo, is a ruse worthy of the Con Job Hall of Fame, far better than the Piltdown man. You know, this is REALLY stupid on part of the science community. Write this down so you will remember “I told you so.” What is going to happen is the exaggerations are going to be found out, fully exposed, for all the world to see. Science is going to take a blow to its credibility, and then what do you think the next development will be? Yep, opportunistic creationists are going to use that to get more of a foothold. This is so freakin’ stupid on the part of the evolutionists.

What they should do is back off from their claims that evolutionary theory is all but proven and admit where every, single solitary gap and problem is with the theory. It’s like the trial lawyer who knows his client has credibility issues and so brings them out before the opposing side can.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Their evidence that the air conditioners evolved is that all contain thermostats, which do cause air conditioners to adapt. They say, “see, there is an adaptive mechanism, so that’s what is most likely the cause of evolution.” And then to explain how the first air conditioner got organized, they throw parts of the conditioner in a box and observe a magnet and a spring hooking up, and then say, “see, the magnet and spring have self-organized, and since they are part of the building blocks of an air conditioner, that is most likely how the first air conditioner got organized.”

Since I can't edit my posts yet without jumping through hoops (new software is on the way), I wanted to add this to my air conditioner analogy.

After citing the evidence, the repairmen then say "the evidence is overwhelming."

However, what they mean by overwhelming is that a thermostat can be found in millions and millions of air conditioners. Since they've not shown that thermostats alone can evolve an air conditioner, what "overwhelming" amounts to is huge pile of exactly the same unsubstantiated claim.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Here’s how I would boil down the issue.

The theories of abiogenesis and evolution by genetic variation-natural selection both depend on pure mechanics which theorists claim can achieve high-functioning organizational systems. Since a very advanced level of complex functional organization is achieved, and no outside force is allowed, then for these theories to hold water mechanics/physicalness alone must possesses a very high self-organizing potential.

Question: Can physical substances and principles be manipulated to create high-functioning organizational systems?

Answer: Yes. This is proven since high-functioning organizational systems exist.

Question: Can scientists use physical substances and principles to create certain high-functioning organizational systems?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Does the fact that scientists can use physical substances and principles to create high-functioning organizational systems mean they understand physical substances and principles?

Answer: Yes, at least better than any other class of thinkers.


Okay, so we know physical substances and principles can be used to create high-functioning organizational systems, and we know scientists understand how to work with and even create such systems. Next set of questions.

Question: Can physical substances and principles organize themselves into high-functioning organizational systems?

Answer: No one knows.

Question: Are many scientists claiming physical substances and principles can and have organized themselves into high-functioning organizational systems?

Answer: Yes, emphatically so.

Question: Does scientists’ ability to use physical substances and principles to create certain high-functioning organizational systems justify making unsupported self-organizing claims?

Answer: No because self-organization is an entirely different issue from organization, and organization is all they proven they can either understand or create. They have shown absolutely no ability to recreate self-organizing systems with mechanics and physicalness alone.

Question: What justifies scientists’ physical self-organizing claims if they cannot support them properly with evidence?

Answer (mine anyway, feel free to offer your own): To the extent natural selection and genetic variation are being unmitigatingly taught as responsible for the development of entire organisms, it isn’t science but rather the belief system of a class of thinkers (and I do not mean all scientists) who believe their mechanical abilities make them RIGHT right about the universe's entire ontolgy, and that those of us who don’t (or aren't yet ready to) agree are merely ininformed, stupid or creationist zealots. They therefore feel justified both in not having to properly make their case to the vulgar classes, and in running roughshod over all disputants.

 

[Tisthammerw]

Really? Please tell me what is so religious about life on Earth being artificially created.

That would be the part about God.

No deities and no supernatural forces are necessary to artificially create life. The theory that artificial intervention is necessary for the creation of life on Earth makes no reference deities, the supernatural, or founders of ancient religions.

I suppose these IDers are actively employing deception to introduce religion into classrooms?

That's correct.

See what I said earlier about demonizing the opposition. For one thing, ID (at least as it applies to life) makes no mention about God and yet you seemed to connect it with theism anyway (creationists have done a similar thing with evolution and atheism).

The Discovery Institute is not the inventor of intelligent design. Intelligent design has been around long before this institute existed.

The current "Intelligent Design" that we are discussing in this thread is the creation of Stephen Meyers & Phillip E. Johnson, creators of the Discovery Institute. "The term intelligent design came up in 1988 at a conference in Tacoma, Wash., called Sources of Information Content in DNA," claims Stephen C. Meyer, co-founder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture, who was present at the phrase's re-creation, which he attributes to Of Pandas and People editor Charles Thaxton. The phrase appeared in the first edition Of Pandas and People in 1989, which is considered the first modern Intelligent Design book. The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book Darwin on Trial. Johnson went on to work with Meyers, becoming the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture and is considered the "father" of the Intelligent Design movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design

That web article is flawed on many levels (see post #146). And in any case, while a certain group may have made ID popular, that doesn’t imply that they originated it, and they didn’t. (Just as Darwin did not invent the theory of evolution, nor did he invent the theory of natural selection, even if he did make the theories quite popular.)

As I said you can find it from the Discovery institute's own website. I got this link from the Discovery Institute's website. http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/wedge.html

That’s nice, but that still doesn’t answer my question on why you chose to get it secondhand instead of going straight to the source on what they have to say regarding this issue. Many people like to claim what the ID movement is about, but misunderstandings and unintentional distortions of the actual position are all too common, including in that wikipedia article.

If you think that ID is valid science, then please list some of their "proofs" that invalidate the findings that support evolution.

Technically, ID and evolution aren’t incompatible. One could always believe evolution happened via an artificial agency. My main beef is with abiogenesis anyway. I can state the case for this issue in a nutshell. Modern ID says that “artificial intervention is necessary.” From this we can deduce two empirical consequences: (1) We should never find a way undirected chemical reactions could produce life (because artificial intervention is necessary) and (2) we expect to find serious and significant obstacles to the naturalistic formation of life. Both these predictions have come true (so far). The first prediction, while it may not sound like much, at least makes ID falsifiable. In contrast, abiogenesis is not falsifiable and runs into a number of significant problems. Thus, ID seems to be the best explanation for the data.

By the way, if you think ID is not valid science, please list some “scientific reasons” why abiogenesis is a better scientific theory than ID. Regarding ID allegedly not being a legitimate scientific theory for philosophical reasons (e.g. ID is allegedly not falsifiable etc.) see post #146 (which, as I suggested before, is one list of reasons why the wikipedia article gets it wrong). Feel free to list some genuine philosophical reasons to discount ID.

What, can't find any? Oh, that's because you don't have any.

(You see, I can play that game too.)

With the ruling in Australia, the ID movement is failing miserably.

I’ll bite. What happened in Australia?

[Edit: typo correction]

 

[Psi 5]

I think another bit of evidence against intelligent design is the fact that the universe works by the laws of logic. That's right, logic implies a natural universe, not a created one. Why would an omnipotent being create a logical universe, just because he could? It would be better for his purposes to create a universe of magic and chaos where there were no logical physical laws. There would be no need for an infinite universe. The stars only need to be lights in the heaven. Another words, the universe only needs to be what people thought it was when religions were created. The logic of the universe has only become apparent in recent history, long after religion was invented.

I think this evidence argues against your conclusion. I do not believe that the universe works by the laws of logic. I believe that logic is designed by humans to explain the laws of the universe...

You don't believe the universe works by the laws of logic? If the universe didn't work by logic you would be writing that message on a magic scroll instead of a computer. The laws of science discovered over the past couple thousand years ARE logic. Religions were first invented thousands of years before that. Probably because logic is inherent in the way the human mind works and it needed an explanation for things before scientific explanations were discovered. Without the explanations of science known, God was the substitute. It could explain everything, deus ex machina. Therefore my statement that the logical universe is unecessary, deus ex machina is all that is needed if it was created by a god.

 

[Evo]

Regarding ID allegedly not being a legitimate scientific theory for philosophical reasons (e.g. ID is allegedly not falsifiable etc.) see post #146 (which, as I suggested before, is one list of reasons why the wikipedia article gets it wrong). Feel free to list some genuine philosophical reasons to discount ID.

Actually I hadn't bothered responding to that post because so much of what you posted was wrong. If I have time, I will list the scientific reasons why ID is wrong.

I’ll bite. What happened in Australia?

An Australian response to Intelligent Design

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...-design-a-faith/2005/10/28/1130400365346.html

October 29, 2005

---quote---
Kosky rules intelligent design a faith

Victoria's government schools will treat intelligent design as a religious faith, not science, Education Minister Lynne Kosky has ruled.

In her first statement on the subject, Ms Kosky reaffirmed the principle that government schools were secular and did not promote any religion.

She said the two areas in which religion could be discussed were optional religious education lessons and VCE studies comparing religions.

"In line with the above principles, schools can decide whether to offer intelligent design as part of religious instruction," Ms Kosky said. "Parents will be given the opportunity to withdraw their child from the lesson." ...

...Last week a coalition representing 70,000 Australian scientists and teachers likened it to the flat-earth theory.
---endquote---

 

[moving finger]

What is the difference between moving the explanation to a creationary consciousness level, or sticking in never-before observed physical principles in the gaps?

If you think I believe we can know "absolute truth" then you are very much mistaken.

I did not say that the alternative to ID "provides all the answers". I don't think ANY hypothesis "provides all the answers".

You put the finger on the problem of the "ID solution" yourself -

what the ID person fills the gap with, intelligence, has been observed acting creatively and with the ability to organize toward high functionality

this does NOT really attempt to answer the question about where humans came from, it merely avoids answering the question by moving it on to another stage.

MF

 

[moving finger]

it isn’t science but rather the belief system of a class of thinkers (and I do not mean all scientists) who believe their mechanical abilities make them RIGHT right about the universe's entire ontolgy

The whole of science is based on "belief systems". Or does Les Sleeth perhaps think he/she has access to some "absolute truth"?

The real question to be answered is whether the belief system being promulgated is reasonable, rational and defensible.

MF

 

[Tisthammerw]

Actually I hadn't bothered responding to that post [i.e. post #146] because so much of what you posted was wrong.

Now that's interesting. Much of my information I got regarding the philosophy of science comes from Del Ratzsch, author of Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate. It is one of the best and most objective books I have ever read on the subject. Much of what he said regarding the philosophy of science I intuitively thought about it at the back of my head, but disregarded those thoughts because the “experts” seemed to think something different (Ratzsch’s chapters on contemporary philosophy of science were thus rather eye-opening).

If I have time, I will list the scientific reasons why ID is wrong.

I would greatly appreciate your (or anyone else's) input on post #146.

An Australian response to Intelligent Design
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...-design-a-faith/2005/10/28/1130400365346.html
October 29, 2005
---quote---
Kosky rules intelligent design a faith
Victoria's government schools will treat intelligent design as a religious faith, not science, Education Minister Lynne Kosky has ruled.
In her first statement on the subject, Ms Kosky reaffirmed the principle that government schools were secular and did not promote any religion.
She said the two areas in which religion could be discussed were optional religious education lessons and VCE studies comparing religions.
"In line with the above principles, schools can decide whether to offer intelligent design as part of religious instruction," Ms Kosky said. "Parents will be given the opportunity to withdraw their child from the lesson." ...
---endquote---

The link doesn't give much info, but if “intelligent design” is defined there the same way as I define it, this decision is very disappointing. While I can understand why Biblical creationism would be excluded, there is nothing inherently religious about the theory that life was artificially created! It irritates me how some people claim it is religious without bothering to explain why. Methinks some defenders of evolution are becoming a bit overzealous. I suppose that if one wanted to include evidence against evolution in public classrooms, that too would be declared “religious”?

...Last week a coalition representing 70,000 Australian scientists and teachers likened it to the flat-earth theory.
---endquote---

Somehow I suspect that a lot more scientists accept ID than the flat-earth theory. Seems redolent of a false analogy.

 

[Les Sleeth]

You put the finger on the problem of the "ID solution" yourself -

what the ID person fills the gap with, intelligence, has been observed acting creatively and with the ability to organize toward high functionality

this does NOT really attempt to answer the question about where humans came from, it merely avoids answering the question by moving it on to another stage.

I am not sure you get my point. I was talking about the raw trait of consciousness, and not as manifested in humans. I've argued before that it is anthropomorphic to see human consciousness as what defines the entire realm of consciousness. For example, you can see that as central nervous systems evolved, the quality of awareness improved. The physicalist take on it is that the CSN is producing awareness, but that isn't the only option.

I can make the case that the CSN is a channel between a more "general" consciousness source and a living being here on Earth. The history of the evolving CSN, then, would mirror what this general consciousness went through learning consciousness skills. The CSN in such a model becomes an indivuating tool.

Where is this general consciousness? Well, one might suggest it is part of the fabric of the universe the way gravity potential waits at the ready to manifest when mass arrives anywhere in space. We don't have a problem imagining space with physical properties, what's the big problem with imagining it is conscious properties?

Your next question might be, what evidence is there for such a theory? There is, in fact, a lot of evidence, and it fits the concept of the CSN being a channel. The evidence is provided by inner practitioners who literally "reverse" the direction of their focus 180° to experience what's behind their own consciousness (which normally only looks "outward" through the senses). There are consistant reports over a 3000 year period of people discovering a greater realm of consciousness behind our own. Yes, people inexperienced with this realm have created myths and fairy tales about it that make no sense, but why should we listen to their fantasies when we have experts to study who spent their entire lives practicing the 180° thing?

Back to the point I was trying to make to you. It was that if we look around for anything which behaves in an organizing and creative manner, there is nothing else but consciusness that fits the bill. All the attempts to demostrate that physicalness alone can self-organize into high-functioning systems have failed. So until that self-organizing potential can be show to exist in physicalness, then why isn't the possibility of some type of universal conscious force having participated in creation not only plausible, but more plausible than a purely physicalist theory?

Regarding the fact that such a theory doesn't explain where that "general" consciousness itself came from, well you aren't worried that you can't explain where physicalness came from are you? We know physicalness exists, so it had to come from something/somewhere. Similarly, we know consciousness exists and . . . The issue of orgination can be put on hold while we decide if some sort of universal consciousness helps explain the origin of life, evolution, and the emergence of consciousness from the CSN.

it isn’t science but rather the belief system of a class of thinkers (and I do not mean all scientists) who believe their mechanical abilities make them RIGHT right about the universe's entire ontolgy

The whole of science is based on "belief systems". Or does Les Sleeth perhaps think he/she has access to some "absolute truth"?

The real question to be answered is whether the belief system being promulgated is reasonable, rational and defensible.

By "belief system" I mean the commitment to a belief system to the exclusion of all others. In terms of that, Les Sleeth avoids exclusive commitment to belief systems like the plague; my commitment is to be open to any system that produces knowledge of anything whatsoever. If it works, I'm for it.

That isn't so for scientism devotees however. They have their blinders on to everything which isn't mechanistic in nature or revealed by empirical epistomologies. Yes, there are mechanical aspects to the universe, and yes the senses and intellect work well together to reveal them. But it's the exclusionary belief system that leads scientism devotess to both ignore what their epistomology can't fathom, and to offer strictly mechanistic models.

And then when it comes time to teach evolution, they manage to convince courts they have enough evidence to teach our children that genetic variation and natural selection alone have brought about all life forms when in fact they don't have that evidence. To keep any sort of theory of intelligence-assisted evolution out of the discussion, they demonize the opposition and respond to the other side's complaints as though they have absolutely, positively no reason for objecting to Darwinist theory.

While there is reason to resist the ID that is Biblical creationism-light (as some have called it, and I agree), that doesn't mean the scientism side isn't propagating their own unproven belief system as "truth" (and for all intents and purposes, that is how Darwinist evolution is presented to the public). Why is that okay? I mean really, bullsh*t is bullsh*t, why is it any more acceptable when your team does it?

Until we know what the truth is, statements like I quoted from the UC Berkeley website ""Even when a feature is absolutely necessary for survival it can be modified by natural selection for a different function if it is duplicated," is nothing more than blind faith assertions presented as fact. It is one thing to say somehting is one's personal belief, and another to represent yourself as a purveyor of objective facts and then use that trust of the public to promote an unproven belief system. THAT is my objection, and (IMO) a large part of what is also causing the growing resistance by the religious (whether their alternative theory makes sense or not).

 

[Q_Goest]

Tisthammer said: Much of my information I got regarding the philosophy of science comes from Del Ratzsch, author of Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate.

Books and similar publications are not peer reviewed and so they are next to useless in any unbiased, scientific debate. They reflect only the views of the individual author. If you want to use such texts as evidence then one can equally claim the Egyptian pyramids were built by Martians since that concept was also published many decades ago and was a best seller for some time. I forget the title of the book, perhaps someone else remembers.

My brother used to be a creationist, turned ID, but now believes in evolution. He's a Dr. of Chiropractic, so he expects solid scientific evidence. The thing that changed his mind was a box load of editorials and articles I'd sent him that were pulled from the journals of Science and Nature.

Science is advanced through peer reviewed journals. The two most prestigious ones are the Journal of Nature and the Journal of Science. These journals and many others regularly have editorials and articles condemning those that try to push ID into schools. There is no support within the scientific mainstream for ID, and no articles regarding ID have ever been published within reputable journals. There are "scientific journals" that cater to the ID crowd, but these journals sprang up from the supporters of ID and are widely considered even less scientific than cold fusion journals. For those that believe in ID, you'll need to look in the dark, dank corners of sin city to find anyone with a piece of paper that says ID is an acceptable and published theory, it just isn't true. ID has been rejected wholesale by the scientific community.

The link doesn't give much info, but if “intelligent design” is defined there the same way as I define it, this decision is very disappointing. While I can understand why Biblical creationism would be excluded, there is nothing inherently religious about the theory that life was artificially created! It irritates me how some people claim it is religious without bothering to explain why.

That's one of the problems with ID. It was in fact started just a few decades ago, not hundreds of years ago as ID'ers might have you believe. The term wasn't around until just recently. It was created by creationists that lost any hope of getting creationism put into schools. It was created by religious fundamentalists that saw an angle on creationism that might put God back in the classroom.

If someone wants to create a theory about the possibility that there is an organizing force that lies outside our existing dimension that guides evolution through organizational properties of matter and energy, and if they can provide any evidence whatsoever, then they need to find a different name for the theory. Intelligent Design is a term that's already been coined and claimed by the religious right to support a perception of a Christian God, and God has no place in a classroom.

 

[Les Sleeth]

There is no support within the scientific mainstream for ID, and no articles regarding ID have ever been published within reputable journals. . . . ID has been rejected wholesale by the scientific community.

If you've followed my arguments, only if the scientific community exhibits complete objectivity in presenting the evidence (and where it's lacking) do they get the stamp of "fair judge." As long as their presentation shows they are skewing their intepretations and exaggerating the significance of the evidence they do have, then what they accept and reject in regard to their pet theory is suspect. Doctor, heal thyself!

If someone wants to create a theory about the possibility that there is an organizing force that lies outside our existing dimension that guides evolution through organizational properties of matter and energy, and if they can provide any evidence whatsoever, then they need to find a different name for the theory. Intelligent Design is a term that's already been coined and claimed by the religious right to support a perception of a Christian God, and God has no place in a classroom.

Well, I suggest IA; that is, intelligently assisted evolution. But this issue of what's acceptable as evidence is more important than you seem to acknowledge. Tell me, why would you assume science can find everything it needs for a complete theory by relying strictly on empiricism? If you don't believe that, then why the typical demand "if they can provide any evidence whatsoever" when there is evidence?

Who is going to judge what's allowed as evidence, those who believe only sense experience is epistomologically sound? The argument that non-empirical evidence is beyond science might work IF the scientism side stops filling theory gaps with improbable theories and allows that something nonphysical might be at work in those gaps. But if the scientism side is going to sit in judgement wearing a physicalistic filter, and disallowing, dismissing, and generally dissing all that doesn't fit their epistemology, then this fight is only going to get worse.

 

[Les Sleeth]

ID part one

[I've not attempted to defend Christian ID. However even there, all exertions are not scientifically lacking. Consider this effort by a blatantly creationist/Biblical site to make a case based on statistical probabilities, complete with references -- indicated by (#) -- to scientific journals and books. I've shortened references to make this fit into two posts.]

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designss.html#09]

Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support

The table below lists the parameters required for a planet to be able to sustain life. Individually, the probabilities of occurrence of each parameter are not particularly impressive. The fact that all of these parameters are found on the Earth is extremely impressive, indicating an extreme deviation from random chance. The probability values below are ones obtained from that observed in the universe as a whole.

1. galaxy size (9), probability (p) = 0.1

if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun's orbit and ignite deadly galactic eruptions

if too small: infusion of gas would be insufficient to sustain star formation long enough for life to form

2. galaxy type (7) (p = 0.1)

if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy elements formed for life chemistry

if too irregular: radiation exposure would be too severe (at times) and life-essential heavy elements would not form

3. galaxy location (9) (p = 0.1)

if too close to dense galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally unstable, hence unsuitable for life

if too close to large galaxy(ies): same result

4. supernovae eruptions (8) (p = 0.01)

if too close: radiation would exterminate life

if too far: too little "ash" would be available for rocky planets to form

if too infrequent: same result

if too frequent: radiation would exterminate life

if too soon: too little "ash" would be available for rocky planets to form

if too late: radiation would exterminate life

5. white dwarf binaries (8) (p = 0.01)

if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry

if too many: orbits of life-supportable planets would be disrupted; life would be exterminated

if too soon: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry

if too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry

6. proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption (9)

if farther: insufficient heavy elements would be attracted for life chemistry

if closer: nebula would be blown apart

7. timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption (9)

if earlier: nebula would be blown apart

if later: nebula would not attract enough heavy elements for life chemistry

8. parent star distance from center of galaxy (9) (p = 0.2)

if greater: insufficient heavy elements would be available for rocky planet formation

if lesser: radiation would be too intense for life; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits, making life impossible

9. parent star distance from closest spiral arm (9) (p = 0.1)

if too small: radiation from other stars would be too intense and the stellar density would disturb orbits of life-supportable planets

if too great: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient for formation of life-supportable planets

10. z-axis range of star's orbit (9) (p = 0.1)

if too wide: exposure to harmful radiation from galactic core would be too great

11. number of stars in the planetary system (10) (p = 0.2)

if more than one: tidal interactions would make the orbits of life-supportable planets too unstable for life

if fewer than one: no heat source would be available for life chemistry

12. parent star birth date (9) (p = 0.2)

if more recent: star burning would still be unstable; stellar system would contain too many heavy elements for life chemistry

if less recent: stellar system would contain insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry

13. parent star age (9) (p = 0.4)

if older: star's luminosity would be too erratic for life support

if younger: same result

14. parent star mass (10) (p = 0.001)

if greater: star's luminosity would be too erratic and star would burn up too quickly to support life

if lesser: life support zone would be too narrow; rotation period of life-supportable planet would be too long; UV radiation would be insufficient for photosynthesis

15. parent star metallicity (9) (p = 0.05)

if too little: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist

if too great: radioactivity would be too intense for life; heavy element concentrations would be poisonous to life

16. parent star color (9) (p = 0.4)

if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient to sustain life

if bluer: same result

17. H3+ production (23) (p = 0.1)

if too little: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life chemistry would never form

if too great: planets would form at the wrong time and place for life

18. parent star luminosity (11) (p = 0.0001)

if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop

if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop

19. surface gravity (governs escape velocity) (12) (p = 0.001)

if stronger: planet's atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane for life

if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water for life

20. distance from parent star (13) (p = 0.001)

if greater: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle

if lesser: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle

21. inclination of orbit (22) (p = 0.5)

if too great: temperature range on the planet's surface would be too extreme for life

22. orbital eccentricity (9) (p = 0.3)

if too great: seasonal temperature range would be too extreme for life

23. axial tilt (9) (p = 0.3)

if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great to sustain diverse life-forms

if lesser: same result

24. rate of change of axial tilt (9) (p = 0.01)

if greater: climatic and temperature changes would be too extreme for life

25. rotation period (11) (p = 0.1)

if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great for life

if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great for life

26. rate of change in rotation period (14) (p = 0.05)

if more rapid: change in day-to-night temperature variation would be too extreme for sustained life

if less rapid: change in day-to-night temperature variation would be too slow for the development of advanced life

27. planet's age (9) (p = 0.1)

if too young: planet would rotate too rapidly for life

if too old: planet would rotate too slowly for life

28. magnetic field (20) (p = 0.01)

if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe

if weaker: planetary surface and ozone layer would be inadequately protected from hard solar and stellar radiation

29. thickness of crust (15) (p = 0.01)

if greater: crust would rob atmosphere of oxygen needed for life

if lesser: volcanic and tectonic activity would be destructive to life

30. albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface) (9) (p = 0.1)

if greater: runaway glaciation would develop

if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop

31. asteroid and comet collision rates (9) (p = 0.1)

if greater: ecosystem balances would be destroyed

if less: crust would contain too little of certain life-essential elements

32. mass of body colliding with primordial Earth (9) (0 = 0.002)

if greater: Earth's orbit and form would be too greatly disturbed for life

if lesser: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick for life; moon would be too small to fulfill its life-sustaining role

33. timing of above collision (9) (p = 0.05)

if earlier: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick for life; moon would be too small to fulfill its life-sustaining role

if later: Earth's atmosphere would be too thin for life; sun would be too luminous for subsequent life

34. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere (25) (p = 0.1)

if greater: advanced life functions would proceed too rapidly

if lesser: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly

35. carbon dioxide level in atmosphere (21) (p = 0.01)

if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop

if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis

36. water vapor quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)

if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop

if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced land life

37. atmospheric electric discharge rate (9) (p = 0.1)

if greater: fires would be too frequent and widespread for life

if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere

38. ozone quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)

if greater: surface temperatures would be too low for life; insufficient UV radiation for life

if less: surface temperatures would be too high for life; UV radiation would be too intense for life

39. oxygen quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)

if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily, destabilizing Earth's ecosystem

if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe

40. seismic activity (16) (p = 0.1)

if greater: life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged

if less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be recycled to continents through tectonics; not enough carbon dioxide would be released from carbonate buildup

41. volcanic activity (26)

if lower: insufficient amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor would be returned to the atmosphere; soil mineralization would be insufficient for life advanced life support

if higher: advanced life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged

42. rate of decline in tectonic activity (26) (p = 0.1)

if slower: crust conditions would be too unstable for advanced life

if faster: crust nutrients would be inadequate for sustained land life

43. rate of decline in volcanic activity (9) (p = 0.1)

if slower: crust and surface conditions would be unsuitable for sustained land life

if faster: crust and surface nutrients would be inadequate for sustained land life

(continued on next post)

 

[Les Sleeth]

ID, part two

(continued from previous post)

44. oceans-to-continents ratio (11) (p = 0.2)
if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited
if smaller: same result
45. rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio (9) (p = 0.1)
if smaller: land area would be insufficient for advanced life
if greater: change would be too radical for advanced life to survive
46. distribution of continents (10) (p = 0.3)
if too much in the Southern Hemisphere: sea-salt aerosols would be insufficient to stabilize surface temperature and water cycle; increased seasonal differences would limit the available habitats for advanced land life
47. frequency and extent of ice ages (9) (p = 0.1)
if lesser: Earth's surface would lack fertile valleys essential for advanced life; mineral concentrations would be insufficient for advanced life.
if greater: Earth would experience runaway freezing
48. soil mineralization (9) (p = 0.1)
if nutrient poorer: diversity and complexity of lifeforms would be limited
if nutrient richer: same result
49. gravitational interaction with a moon (17) (p = 0.1)
if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe for life
if lesser: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficient for life; magnetic field would be too weak to protect life from dangerous radiation
50. Jupiter distance (18) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from frequent asteroid and comet collisions
if lesser: Jupiter’s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit
51. Jupiter mass (19) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Jupiter’s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit 9
if lesser: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from asteroid and comet collisions
52. drift in (major) planet distances (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be destabilized
if less: asteroid and comet collisions would be too frequent for life
53. major planet orbital eccentricities (18) (p = 0.05)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone
54. major planet orbital instabilities (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone
55. atmospheric pressure (9) (p = 0.1)
if smaller: liquid water would evaporate too easily and condense too infrequently to support life
if greater: inadequate liquid water evaporation to support life; insufficient sunlight would reach Earth's surface; insufficient UV radiation would reach Earth's surface
56. atmospheric transparency (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: too broad a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth's surface for life support
if lesser: too narrow a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth's surface for life support
57. chlorine quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too high for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too high for most life forms
if lesser: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too low for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too low for most life forms
58. iron quantity in oceans and soils (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: iron poisoning would destroy advanced life
if lesser: food to support advanced life would be insufficient
if very small: no life would be possible
59. tropospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: advanced animals would experience respiratory failure; crop yields would be inadequate for advanced life; ozone-sensitive species would be unable to survive
if smaller: biochemical smog would hinder or destroy most life
60. stratospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: not enough LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface to produce food and life-essential vitamins
if lesser: too much LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface, causing skin cancers and reducing plant growth
61. mesospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases would disturb relative abundance of life-essential gases in lower atmosphere
if lesser: same result
62. frequency and extent of forest and grass fires (24) (p = 0.01)
if greater: advanced life would be impossible
if lesser: accumulation of growth inhibitors, combined with insufficient nitrification, would make soil unsuitable for food production
63. quantity of soil sulfur (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: plants would be destroyed by sulfur toxins, soil acidity, and disturbance of the nitrogen cycle
if lesser: plants would die from protein deficiency
64. biomass to comet-infall ratio (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: greenhouse gases would decline, triggering runaway freezing
if lesser: greenhouse gases would accumulate, triggering runaway greenhouse effect
65. quantity of sulfur in planet's core (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: solid inner core would never form, disrupting magnetic field
if smaller: solid inner core formation would begin too soon, causing it to grow too rapidly and extensively, disrupting magnetic field
66. quantity of sea-salt aerosols (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: too much and too rapid cloud formation over the oceans would disrupt the climate and atmospheric temperature balances
if smaller: insufficient cloud formation; hence, inadequate water cycle; disrupts atmospheric temperature balances and hence the climate
67. dependency factors (estimate 100,000,000,000)
68. longevity requirements (estimate .00001)


Total Probability = 1:1099
By putting together probabilities for each of these design features occurring by chance, we can calculate the probability of the existence of a planet like Earth. This probability is 1 chance in 1099. Since there are estimated to be a maximum of 1023 planets in the universe*, by chance there shouldn't be any planets capable of supporting life in the universe (only one chance in 1076). Design or random chance?

*Note: This is most likely a huge over estimate. In a recent survey of globular cluster 47 Tucanae, scientists found zero extrasolar planets out of 37,000 stars searched (Astronomers Ponder Lack of Planets in Globular Cluster from the Space Telescope Science Institute).

1. Taylor, G. Jeffrey. July, 1994. "The scientific legacy of Apollo" Scientific American
2. Rudnick, R. 1995. Making continental crust. Nature.
3. Maher, K.A. and D.J. Stevenson. 1988. Impact frustrations of the origin of life. Nature
4. Peterson, Ivars. 1993. Newton's Clock: Chaos in the Solar System, W.H. Freeman and Co.
5. Rasio, F.A. and E.B. Ford. 1996. Dynamical instabilities and the formation of extrasolar planetary systems. Science.
6. Dicke, R.H. 1961. Dirac's cosmology and Mach's principle. Nature
7. Cowen, R. 1992. Were spiral galaxies once more common? Science News
Dressler, et al. 1994. New images of the distant rich cluster, CL 0939+4713 with WFPC2. Astrophysical Journal Letters
8. Davies, R.E. and R. H. Koch. 1991. All the observed universe has contributed to life. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 9. Ross, H. 1995. The Creator and the Cosmos.
Ross, H. 1998. Big Bang Refined by Fire..
10. Schlovskii, I.S. and C. Sagan. 1966. Intelligent life in the universe.
11. Kuhn, W.R., J.C.G. Walker, and H.G. Marshall. 1989. The effect on the Earth's surface temperature from variations in rotation rate, continent formation, solar luminosity, and carbon dioxide. Journal of Geophysical Research.
12. Abell, G. 1964. Exploration of the Universe. Brandt, J.C. and P.W. Hodge. 1964. Solar System Astrophysics.
13. Hart, M.H. 1979. Habitable zones about main sequence stars. Icarus 37.
14. Jenkins, G.S., H.G. Marshall, and W.R. Kuhn. 1993. Precambrian climate: the effects of land area and Earth's rotation rate. Journal of Geophysical Research, Series
Zahnle, K.J. and J.C.G. Walker. 1987. A constant daylength during the precambrian era? Precambrian Research
Monastersky, R. 1993. Speedy spin kept early Earth from freezing. Science News.
15. Campbell, I.H. and S.R. Taylor. 1983. No water, no granite - no oceans, no continents. Geophysical Research Letters
16. Rudnick, R. 1995. Making continental crust. Nature
17. Ward. W.R. 1982. Comments on the long-term stability of the Earth's obliquity. Icarus
Murray, C.D. 1993. Seasoned travelers. Nature
Laskar, J. and P. Robutel. 1993. The chaotic obliquity of the planets. Nature
Laskar, J., F. Joutel, and P. Robutel. 1993. Stabilization of the Earth's obliquity by the Moon. Nature
18. The editors. July 1993. Our friend Jove. Discove
George Wetherill, "How Special Is Jupiter?" Nature
B. Zuckerman, T. Forveille, and J. H. Kastner, "Inhibition of Giant-Planet Formation by Rapid Gas Depletion Around Young Stars," Nature
Ray Jayawardhana, "No Alien Jupiters," Science.
19. Laskar, J. 1994. Large-scale chaos in the Solar System. Astronomy and Astrophysics
Rasio, F.A. and E.B.Ford. 1996. Dynamical instabilities and the formation of extrasolar planetary systems. Scienc
20. Elliott H. Lieb, Michael Loss, and Jan Philip Solovej, "Stability of Matter in Magnetic Fields," Physical Review Letters
21. Rob Rye, Phillip H. Kuo, and Heinrich D. Holland, "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Before 2.2 Billion Years Ago," Nature 378
22. Robert A. Muller and Gordon J. MacDonald, "Glacial Cycles and orbital inclination," Nature
23. T. R. Gabella and T. Oka, "Detection of H3+ in interstellar Space," Nature
24. Peter D. Moore, "Fire Damage Soils Our Forest," Nature
25. Christine Mlot, "Tallying Nitrogen's Increasing Impact," Science News
Paul G. Falkowski, "Evolution of the Nitrogen Cycle and its Influence on the Biological Sequestration of C02 in the Ocean," Nature
26. Peter Olson, "Probing Earth's Dynamo," Nature
Weiji Kuang and Jeremy Bloxham, "An Earth-Like Numerical Dynamo Model," Nature
Xiaodong Song and Paul G. Richards, "Seismological Evidence for Differential Rotation of the Earth's Inner Core," Nature
Wei-jia Su, Adam M. Dziewonski, and Raymond Jeanloz, "Planet Within a Planet: Rotation of the Inner Core of the Earth," Science

 

[wave]

But if the scientism side is going to sit in judgement wearing a physicalistic filter, and disallowing, dismissing, and generally dissing all that doesn't fit their epistemology, then this fight is only going to get worse.

Like how you dismissed post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=794720&postcount=134"?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Like how you dismissed post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=794720&postcount=134"?

I didn't dismiss them. I just decided it is futile to debate you because you haven't budged from your position, a position I say you must get flexible within for me to communicate with you. What position is that?

It is an epistemological "stance" you've assumed by which you judge all statements a priori. I am challenging certain limitations of that very stance, but you keep standing there judging from that stance all new statements I make about the biases/filters/assumptions of that stance. It is hopeless! If you ain't going to budge then I'm just yielding to your wish to stay there.

 

[Psi 5]

That's an amazing set of conditions Les. So what you are saying is basically we wouldn't be here if conditions weren't conducive to human life. Very profound.

Of course you could say much the same about a nasty case of athletes foot. What are the odds of that fungus finding a foot in the whole universe to thrive on? Think about it. It's big, it's dark, it's moist, it's the right temperature and it's in the right place at the right time in a whole universe that isn't a foot. I wonder if the fungus wonders who created it and provided it the perfect conditons to thrive? Maybe it even worships us and wonders why we periodically dose it with Tinactin since it was obviously placed on the foot on purpose and is therefore the chosen fungi. Some probably argue they can't know the reason why while others insist they can.

 

[Q_Goest]

If you've followed my arguments, only if the scientific community exhibits complete objectivity in presenting the evidence (and where it's lacking) do they get the stamp of "fair judge." As long as their presentation shows they are skewing their interpretations and exaggerating the significance of the evidence they do have, then what they accept and reject in regard to their pet theory is suspect. Doctor, heal thyself!

The concept of peer review helps to prevent unreasonable and uninformed scientific papers from reaching that elevated and sought after 'badge of validity'. The peer review concept is a filter intended to prevent illogical or ill conceived research from being presented as valid. Generally, the review is done by those expert in the field, some of whom may be selected by the author. What I'm getting at here, is there is no "scientific community" (sounds like an organization) which referees the papers, they are reviewed by individuals. If those individuals aren't convinced your logic is sound, and if they determine that your paper hasn't met the minimum criteria needed for publishing, it doesn't get through. The "fair judge" is not a single person or organization, the judge in this case can be a large number of different experts whom need to be convinced your paper is worthy of being published. All things considered, I'd say that's a pretty reasonable way of doing things.

Well, I suggest IA; that is, intelligently assisted evolution. But this issue of what's acceptable as evidence is more important than you seem to acknowledge. Tell me, why would you assume science can find everything it needs for a complete theory by relying strictly on empiricism? If you don't believe that, then why the typical demand "if they can provide any evidence whatsoever" when there is evidence?

Who is going to judge what's allowed as evidence, those who believe only sense experience is epistomologically sound? The argument that non-empirical evidence is beyond science might work IF the scientism side stops filling theory gaps with improbable theories and allows that something nonphysical might be at work in those gaps. But if the scientism side is going to sit in judgement wearing a physicalistic filter, and disallowing, dismissing, and generally dissing all that doesn't fit their epistemology, then this fight is only going to get worse.

I've read your posts as much as possible, skimming many. Strangely, I can sympathize with the concept that there may be some organizing principal beyond reductionism, and there are others who hold similar views, most notably Laughlin:

The natural world is regulated both by fundamental laws and by powerful principles of organization that flow out of them which are also transcendent, in that they would continue to hold even if the fundamentals were changed slightly. This is, of course, an ancient idea, but one that has now been experimentally demonstrated by the stupendously accurate reproducibility of certain measurements - in extreme cases parts in a trillion. This accuracy, which cannot be deduced from underlying microscopics, proves that matter acting collectively can generate physical law spontaneously.

Physicists have always argued about which kind of law is more important - fundamental or emergent - but they should stop. The evidence is mounting that ALL physical law is emergent, notably and especially behavior associated with the quantum mechanics of the vacuum. This observation has profound implications for those of us concerned about the future of science. We live not at the end of discovery but at the end of Reductionism, a time in which the false ideology of the human mastery of all things through microscopics is being swept away by events and reason. This is not to say that microscopic law is wrong or has no purpose, but only that it is rendered irrelevant in many circumstances by its children and its children's children, the higher organizational laws of the world.

But to suggest there is an intelligence behind evolution smacks of religious dogma, and that is what ID is. Why do we need to suggest a God or other intelligence? Is that what you believe? What is wrong with simply "organizing principals"? We might be able to search for such things. We may be able to better understand the universe if we can logically pick apart this space we're in and try to understand it. Suggesting it is beyond our ability to understand empirically or at least theoretically is to suggest we have a roadblock beyond which we may not pass. To suggest a "God" or "intelligence" which we have no access to and will never be able to test or theorize about in any way shape or form is simply saying "Give up, human. You'll never understand it!".

The choice seems clear, we can advance existing knowledge by presenting evidence for changes to existing ideas about the universe, but we can't advance anything by suggesting some unknowable, untestable "intelligence" had a hand in guiding this universe.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I've read your posts as much as possible, skimming many. Strangely, I can sympathize with the concept that there may be some organizing principal beyond reductionism, and there are others who hold similar views, most notably Laughlin:

I respect your ideas as part of a well-supported point of view, even though I am going to dispute them. Right now, my wife is on her way home, and I want to cook something special for her, so I will think about your comments, look into Laughlin where you've quoted, and answer asap.

 

[moving finger]

Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support

I can use the same evidence to defend the anthropic cosmological argument - which has absolutely NOTHING to do with intelligent design

MF

 

[Les Sleeth]

I can use the same evidence to defend the anthropic cosmological argument - which has absolutely NOTHING to do with intelligent design.

Maybe, but it does have something to do with how much (blind) faith physicalists have in physicalness to behave beyond anything they can observe it behaving like in real life. I suppose you don't see the irony in physicalists screaming like stuck pigs over the improbability of some religious propositions, yet their own theory is packed with improbabilites up the yin yang. But of course, that's okay as long as we keep God out of things! Right?

 

[Les Sleeth]

The concept of peer review helps to prevent unreasonable and uninformed scientific papers from reaching that elevated and sought after 'badge of validity'. The peer review concept is a filter intended to prevent illogical or ill conceived research from being presented as valid. Generally, the review is done by those expert in the field, some of whom may be selected by the author. What I'm getting at here, is there is no "scientific community" (sounds like an organization) which referees the papers, they are reviewed by individuals. If those individuals aren't convinced your logic is sound, and if they determine that your paper hasn't met the minimum criteria needed for publishing, it doesn't get through. The "fair judge" is not a single person or organization, the judge in this case can be a large number of different experts whom need to be convinced your paper is worthy of being published. All things considered, I'd say that's a pretty reasonable way of doing things.

It is reasonable for scientific propositions. But if you understand my point, it is that whether there’s a “formal” scientific community or not, there is general agreement among empirical thinkers (90% of whom are atheists) that science is a standard by which all epistemological claims can be judged (i.e., scientism). In other words, if someone claims to “know” or have evidence of something, the scientism mind believes it is justified in judging it by empirical standards.

This attitude may be denied when the religious get mad about the exclusivity of the scientism attitude and wish to include “something” more in theoretical models; in that case the scientism devotee might say, “that’s outside the scope of science” to suggest they have no opinion one way or another, and it’s just that they can only evaluate things scientifically. But, the reality is, every single aspect of the universe is now being modeled with purely physical principles and processes, from the origin of it all to life, evolution and consciousness, and every proposal which isn’t physical is being dismissed as unnecessary. If I hear Ockham’s Razor conveniently applied to nonphysical proposals again I think I’m going to get sick. Why?

Because in the theories of life, evolution and consciousness are physicalist propositions for how to fill certain theoretical gaps, and I’ve been maintaining that those propositions are uncharacteristic of physicalness. Yet that doesn’t deter scientism devotees from their faith that physicalness and mechanics have transcended their normally entropic, obtuse nature and found a way to organize themselves into high-functioning, self-sustaining, metabolizing, reproducing, adapting, evolving systems. Somehow mundane and dumb physicalness/mechanics have even become conscious! It’s a miracle far beyond the proportions of the Red Sea parting, walking on water, or rising from the dead. So sure, let’s continue to use that ol’ Ockham’s Razor to cut out any and all nonphysical proposals.

You have to keep in mind two more points to understand my objection, and the first is, for the confirmation of hypotheses, empiricism relies on the senses. Sense experience has only shown it can reveal physical information.

The second point is, there is at least one discipline, which for 3000 years has had such powerful advocates as the Buddha, where the aim is to withdraw from the senses and develop a whole other realm of awareness. The purpose of this discipline, which requires a lifetime of practice to master, is to develop one’s “feeling” nature so deeply that one can feel more subtle influences within oneself and creation. It is this experience, I claim, which has been the most reliable source of reports about some sort of universal consciousness.

Now, if you are an empiricist, and you can’t fill theoretical gaps with physical components that makes sense, and the inner guys have always felt and claimed those gaps are not mechanistic, but instead determined by some universal consciousness they’ve learned to experience through their practice, how should the empiricists evaluate that claim?

Well, right now they evaluate it with empirical standards. Yet what they are doing is subjecting a discipline that is not sense-dependent to a discipline which is sense-dependent, and they do it without the slightest doubt it’s the proper way to evaluate because they have already assumed the empirical standard is the end-all in knowing. (whether they will admit it or not).

I've read your posts as much as possible, skimming many. Strangely, I can sympathize with the concept that there may be some organizing principal beyond reductionism, and there are others who hold similar views, most notably Laughlin:
But to suggest there is an intelligence behind evolution smacks of religious dogma, and that is what ID is. Why do we need to suggest a God or other intelligence? Is that what you believe? What is wrong with simply "organizing principals"? We might be able to search for such things. We may be able to better understand the universe if we can logically pick apart this space we're in and try to understand it. Suggesting it is beyond our ability to understand empirically or at least theoretically is to suggest we have a roadblock beyond which we may not pass. To suggest a "God" or "intelligence" which we have no access to and will never be able to test or theorize about in any way shape or form is simply saying "Give up, human. You'll never understand it!".
The choice seems clear, we can advance existing knowledge by presenting evidence for changes to existing ideas about the universe, but we can't advance anything by suggesting some unknowable, untestable "intelligence" had a hand in guiding this universe.

Who says it’s “unknowable”? It’s so funny that you believe because you can’t know it through empiricism, nobody can know it some other way. As I asked Wave, who gave empiricists all of humanity’s epistemological keys? Where do scientism devotees get off dismissing anything that isn’t within their realm of expertise? Boy, talk about arrogance.

Laughlin, like so many science thinkers, is ignorant as a post of the inner discipline I mentioned. That is my other big complaint . . . the narrow education of scientism devotees. Just because mechanics is one’s preference and predilection doesn’t mean the only way to develop consciousness is so all one looks at, and can see, is mechanics (i.e., sense bound). If you want to do that, fine, but how does that justify laying claim to every feature of creation, and not even bothering to find out if anyone else has achieved success with an epistemology other than one’s own?

You don’t have to master the inner discipline to study its venerable history and have respect for what others have achieved. And when it comes time to talk about those gaps filled with theories uncharacteristic to physicalness, then it is fair that the reports of those who have experienced a universal consciousness get to be considered if intelligence would help explain the gaps.

 

[jimmie]

The second point is, there is at least one discipline, which for 3000 years has had such powerful advocates as the Buddha, where the aim is to withdraw from the senses and develop a whole other realm of awareness. The purpose of this discipline, which requires a lifetime of practice to master, is to develop one’s “feeling” nature so deeply that one can feel more subtle influences within oneself and creation. It is this experience, I claim, which has been the most reliable source of reports about some sort of universal consciousness.

Just out of curiousity, what if in-fact, there was a living "buddha" today, right now, and that "buddha's" stance on everything was to place science above all other offices, including the current politcal ones?

What if that "buddha's" stance was to make 'causality' the focus of all human endeavors?

 

[roamer]

jimminie,
I believe the Buddha did focus very much on cause and effect, and I really can't imagine that he would object at all to any sort of physical emperical evidence science has developed, but I think perhaps many scientists don't like to consider the possibility that cause and effect can have realms beyond physical realms or that there is even anything beyond physical explanation. As an emperical thinker I believe it is important to be able to consider differnt theories and then see how the evidence supports it. So what if there was a theory that conciousness is not physical, couldn't we still evaluate it emperically with cause and effect?

 

[moving finger]

I suppose you don't see the irony in physicalists screaming like stuck pigs over the improbability of some religious propositions, yet their own theory is packed with improbabilites up the yin yang. But of course, that's okay as long as we keep God out of things! Right?

There is a fundamental difference between something which is improbable from a purely statistical perspective (like drawing four aces from a stack of cards), and something which is "improbable" (I would rather say implausible) because it has absolutely no basis in experimentally verifiable data (like the hypothesis of the existence of God)

MF

 

[Les Sleeth]

. . . something which is "improbable" (I would rather say implausible) because it has absolutely no basis in experimentally verifiable data (like the hypothesis of the existence of God)

Did you read my last post to Q_Goest? I don't know how you can keep repeating the same narrow view that empirical epistemology is qualified to evaluate all other epistemological claims without justifying your opinion.

Besides, there is experimentally verifiable data available to you. Learn to meditate as I've described.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Just out of curiousity, what if in-fact, there was a living "buddha" today, right now, and that "buddha's" stance on everything was to place science above all other offices, including the current politcal ones?
What if that "buddha's" stance was to make 'causality' the focus of all human endeavors?

As Roamer pointed out, the Buddha spoke extensively of causality, but his focus wasn't physical causality, rather it was what causes consciousness to suffer and what causes consciousness to be fulfilled.

You would know that your "what if" doesn't make sense if you were familiar with the Buddha's or any other samadhi/union teacher's aim. Why would someone teaching people how to master an inner discipline of meditation give first priority to focusing on the physical world (which is the focus of science)? I predict the Buddha would say that if you want to study the physical world, master science; and if you want to know your self and your origin, master samadhi/union meditation.

As I've been suggesting throughout this thread, the are two completely different epistemologies. There is no reason to make them competitors, there is no way for one to subject the other to the rules of its particular epistemology, and there is absolutely no reason a human being can't be devoted to both.

 

[jimmie]

Why would someone teaching people how to master an inner discipline of meditation give first priority to focusing on the physical world (which is the focus of science)?

I say meditation IS a science.

I predict the Buddha would say that if you want to study the physical world, master science; and if you want to know your self and your origin, master samadhi/union meditation.

Studying and knowing the physical world, and being aware of the physical world, are two different ball games.

there is absolutely no reason a human being can't be devoted to both.

There is one reason why a human being can't be devoted to both: a human being is able to direct their attention to only one particular thing at any particular point, whether that thing is studying the physical world, or studying the spiritual world/meditating.

An individual can study and know many things about the physical world, and not ever be aware of the physical world.

I believe intelligent design is about establishing order with your thoughts. And thought directed at the physical world, the second place, is done so at the expense of the spiritual world, the first place.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I say meditation IS a science.

Oh? Is that the voice of experience?

There is one reason why a human being can't be devoted to both: a human being is able to direct their attention to only one particular thing at any particular point, whether that thing is studying the physical world, or studying the spiritual world/meditating.

I don't know how old you are, but I am curious to hear how you handle simultaneously being a father, a son, a husband, a professional, a Republican (or whatever), a gamer, a tennis player, a cook, a photographer . . .

Obviously in the moment one can only do one thing at a time. But one can create distinct areas of development, each of which have their own rules for success, and where you give your full attention to each when it's their time for attention. Of course, maybe you are incapable of that, and so you project onto the rest of humanity your shortcomings.

 

[jimmie]

Oh? Is that the voice of experience?

Yes.

in the moment one can only do one thing at a time.

where you give your full attention

Rightmeditation, a science, is about directing full attention to no particular thing, this, all the time.

There are countless things that demand attention, and only one thing that does not demand attention; the true self.

Directing attention to the true self first, makes an individual aware of all other things.

An individual at any given point, can direct attention to either this, (their true self), or that, (any other thing), but not both.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

(continued from previous post)
44. oceans-to-continents ratio (11) (p = 0.2)
if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited
if smaller: same result
45. rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio (9) (p = 0.1)
if smaller: land area would be insufficient for advanced life
if greater: change would be too radical for advanced life to survive
46. distribution of continents (10) (p = 0.3)
if too much in the Southern Hemisphere: sea-salt aerosols would be insufficient to stabilize surface temperature and water cycle; increased seasonal differences would limit the available habitats for advanced land life
47. frequency and extent of ice ages (9) (p = 0.1)
if lesser: Earth's surface would lack fertile valleys essential for advanced life; mineral concentrations would be insufficient for advanced life.
if greater: Earth would experience runaway freezing
48. soil mineralization (9) (p = 0.1)
if nutrient poorer: diversity and complexity of lifeforms would be limited
if nutrient richer: same result
49. gravitational interaction with a moon (17) (p = 0.1)
if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe for life
if lesser: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficient for life; magnetic field would be too weak to protect life from dangerous radiation
50. Jupiter distance (18) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from frequent asteroid and comet collisions
if lesser: Jupiter’s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit
51. Jupiter mass (19) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Jupiter’s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit 9
if lesser: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from asteroid and comet collisions
52. drift in (major) planet distances (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be destabilized
if less: asteroid and comet collisions would be too frequent for life
53. major planet orbital eccentricities (18) (p = 0.05)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone
54. major planet orbital instabilities (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone
55. atmospheric pressure (9) (p = 0.1)
if smaller: liquid water would evaporate too easily and condense too infrequently to support life
if greater: inadequate liquid water evaporation to support life; insufficient sunlight would reach Earth's surface; insufficient UV radiation would reach Earth's surface
56. atmospheric transparency (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: too broad a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth's surface for life support
if lesser: too narrow a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth's surface for life support
57. chlorine quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too high for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too high for most life forms
if lesser: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too low for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too low for most life forms
58. iron quantity in oceans and soils (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: iron poisoning would destroy advanced life
if lesser: food to support advanced life would be insufficient
if very small: no life would be possible
59. tropospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: advanced animals would experience respiratory failure; crop yields would be inadequate for advanced life; ozone-sensitive species would be unable to survive
if smaller: biochemical smog would hinder or destroy most life
60. stratospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: not enough LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface to produce food and life-essential vitamins
if lesser: too much LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface, causing skin cancers and reducing plant growth
61. mesospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases would disturb relative abundance of life-essential gases in lower atmosphere
if lesser: same result
62. frequency and extent of forest and grass fires (24) (p = 0.01)
if greater: advanced life would be impossible
if lesser: accumulation of growth inhibitors, combined with insufficient nitrification, would make soil unsuitable for food production
63. quantity of soil sulfur (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: plants would be destroyed by sulfur toxins, soil acidity, and disturbance of the nitrogen cycle
if lesser: plants would die from protein deficiency
64. biomass to comet-infall ratio (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: greenhouse gases would decline, triggering runaway freezing
if lesser: greenhouse gases would accumulate, triggering runaway greenhouse effect
65. quantity of sulfur in planet's core (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: solid inner core would never form, disrupting magnetic field
if smaller: solid inner core formation would begin too soon, causing it to grow too rapidly and extensively, disrupting magnetic field
66. quantity of sea-salt aerosols (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: too much and too rapid cloud formation over the oceans would disrupt the climate and atmospheric temperature balances
if smaller: insufficient cloud formation; hence, inadequate water cycle; disrupts atmospheric temperature balances and hence the climate
67. dependency factors (estimate 100,000,000,000)
68. longevity requirements (estimate .00001)
Total Probability = 1:1099
By putting together probabilities for each of these design features occurring by chance, we can calculate the probability of the existence of a planet like Earth. This probability is 1 chance in 1099. Since there are estimated to be a maximum of 1023 planets in the universe*, by chance there shouldn't be any planets capable of supporting life in the universe (only one chance in 1076). Design or random chance?
*Note: This is most likely a huge over estimate. In a recent survey of globular cluster 47 Tucanae, scientists found zero extrasolar planets out of 37,000 stars searched (Astronomers Ponder Lack of Planets in Globular Cluster from the Space Telescope Science Institute).
1. Taylor, G. Jeffrey. July, 1994. "The scientific legacy of Apollo" Scientific American
2. Rudnick, R. 1995. Making continental crust. Nature.
3. Maher, K.A. and D.J. Stevenson. 1988. Impact frustrations of the origin of life. Nature
4. Peterson, Ivars. 1993. Newton's Clock: Chaos in the Solar System, W.H. Freeman and Co.
5. Rasio, F.A. and E.B. Ford. 1996. Dynamical instabilities and the formation of extrasolar planetary systems. Science.
6. Dicke, R.H. 1961. Dirac's cosmology and Mach's principle. Nature
7. Cowen, R. 1992. Were spiral galaxies once more common? Science News
Dressler, et al. 1994. New images of the distant rich cluster, CL 0939+4713 with WFPC2. Astrophysical Journal Letters
8. Davies, R.E. and R. H. Koch. 1991. All the observed universe has contributed to life. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 9. Ross, H. 1995. The Creator and the Cosmos.
Ross, H. 1998. Big Bang Refined by Fire..
10. Schlovskii, I.S. and C. Sagan. 1966. Intelligent life in the universe.
11. Kuhn, W.R., J.C.G. Walker, and H.G. Marshall. 1989. The effect on the Earth's surface temperature from variations in rotation rate, continent formation, solar luminosity, and carbon dioxide. Journal of Geophysical Research.
12. Abell, G. 1964. Exploration of the Universe. Brandt, J.C. and P.W. Hodge. 1964. Solar System Astrophysics.
13. Hart, M.H. 1979. Habitable zones about main sequence stars. Icarus 37.
14. Jenkins, G.S., H.G. Marshall, and W.R. Kuhn. 1993. Precambrian climate: the effects of land area and Earth's rotation rate. Journal of Geophysical Research, Series
Zahnle, K.J. and J.C.G. Walker. 1987. A constant daylength during the precambrian era? Precambrian Research
Monastersky, R. 1993. Speedy spin kept early Earth from freezing. Science News.
15. Campbell, I.H. and S.R. Taylor. 1983. No water, no granite - no oceans, no continents. Geophysical Research Letters
16. Rudnick, R. 1995. Making continental crust. Nature
17. Ward. W.R. 1982. Comments on the long-term stability of the Earth's obliquity. Icarus
Murray, C.D. 1993. Seasoned travelers. Nature
Laskar, J. and P. Robutel. 1993. The chaotic obliquity of the planets. Nature
Laskar, J., F. Joutel, and P. Robutel. 1993. Stabilization of the Earth's obliquity by the Moon. Nature
18. The editors. July 1993. Our friend Jove. Discove
George Wetherill, "How Special Is Jupiter?" Nature
B. Zuckerman, T. Forveille, and J. H. Kastner, "Inhibition of Giant-Planet Formation by Rapid Gas Depletion Around Young Stars," Nature
Ray Jayawardhana, "No Alien Jupiters," Science.
19. Laskar, J. 1994. Large-scale chaos in the Solar System. Astronomy and Astrophysics
Rasio, F.A. and E.B.Ford. 1996. Dynamical instabilities and the formation of extrasolar planetary systems. Scienc
20. Elliott H. Lieb, Michael Loss, and Jan Philip Solovej, "Stability of Matter in Magnetic Fields," Physical Review Letters
21. Rob Rye, Phillip H. Kuo, and Heinrich D. Holland, "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Before 2.2 Billion Years Ago," Nature 378
22. Robert A. Muller and Gordon J. MacDonald, "Glacial Cycles and orbital inclination," Nature
23. T. R. Gabella and T. Oka, "Detection of H3+ in interstellar Space," Nature
24. Peter D. Moore, "Fire Damage Soils Our Forest," Nature
25. Christine Mlot, "Tallying Nitrogen's Increasing Impact," Science News
Paul G. Falkowski, "Evolution of the Nitrogen Cycle and its Influence on the Biological Sequestration of C02 in the Ocean," Nature
26. Peter Olson, "Probing Earth's Dynamo," Nature
Weiji Kuang and Jeremy Bloxham, "An Earth-Like Numerical Dynamo Model," Nature
Xiaodong Song and Paul G. Richards, "Seismological Evidence for Differential Rotation of the Earth's Inner Core," Nature
Wei-jia Su, Adam M. Dziewonski, and Raymond Jeanloz, "Planet Within a Planet: Rotation of the Inner Core of the Earth," Science

The way I see it, it is a probability thing, because all these conditions must be met for us to evolve from the first amino acids. You got the wagon in front of the horse. All these things occured, and we evolved as a result. I personally don't see that the two theories of intelligent design and evolution must be mutually exclusive. God set all the initial conditions, and everything (including the laws of evolution) abides accordingly. We exist not because we were supposed to, but because the entire universe is supposed to, and our time was enevitable from the beginning. If the universe is infinate, then there is a 100% chance that humans will exist with all said conditions, but we don't know if it is infinate, so let's compromise, it's half infinate... hehe.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Since there are estimated to be a maximum of 1023 planets in the universe*

With a reference to a study of globular clusters. Those clusters are not expected to be rich, or even sparse, in planets since they consist of old pre-metallic stars. Note new research, reported in this month's SciAm, suggests red dwarfs may be rich in planets. One red dwarf studied had three detected, two gas giants and a rocky one about twice the size of earth. If this connection holds up, there will be far more than a thousand planets in the galaxy. Come to that we've been discovering extra-solar planets, not earthlike, of course, at about the rate of 10 per year for something like 20 years, so have we discovered, with our limited methods, a fifth of all the planets in the galaxy?

 

[Les Sleeth]

With a reference to a study of globular clusters. Those clusters are not expected to be rich, or even sparse, in planets since they consist of old pre-metallic stars. Note new research, reported in this month's SciAm, suggests red dwarfs may be rich in planets. One red dwarf studied had three detected, two gas giants and a rocky one about twice the size of earth. If this connection holds up, there will be far more than a thousand planets in the galaxy. Come to that we've been discovering extra-solar planets, not earthlike, of course, at about the rate of 10 per year for something like 20 years, so have we discovered, with our limited methods, a fifth of all the planets in the galaxy?

Wondering, I thought I read somewhere most of the new planets discovered are gas giants. Is that right? Also, were you moved at all, logically speaking, by that list of improbable developments required to create the conditions for life on Earth?

 

[Zlex]

I recall reading that terms must be fully defined before discussing a topic.

Who would ever want to commit to anything so judgmental as actually defining 'intelligence' for the purpose of considering what the Hell anybpody is talking about in regards to this topic?

What do we think we mean when we say that the Universe, as it is, at least, is not 'intelligent?' I mean, at the very least, the Universe, as it is, created us.

Point against?

Of course, that renders 'intelligent design' moot as a proxy for 'Our God Did It,' so I won't find any friends on either side of this debate. I guess I have to admit that what most folks mean by 'intelligent design' is that some being with a will much greater than but still like ours made decisions about those lakes and mountains and Geminis, sort of how we would imagine we would do, if we were God and/or God listened to our suggestions about what how God should act and be, and so on.

So, on a whim, all lakes could have been made in the shape of the letter 'G', but that would have been too obvious, so the G-Man willed it otherwise.

I'm guessing, please let me, that 'willful' design is really what these folks are talking about. That, there is evidence of 'willful' design. (It's still a mystery, and I once asked this in college, but why did God make phlegm? Some mysteries shall remain mysteries, which is a guaranteed gig this whole God thing.)

But 'intelligent' design? Again, we're here, and here is the Universe as it is. We were created, we're here, if there is intelligence in the Universe, then what created that intelligence is at least, intelligent enough. I mean, I don't know anybody admittedly intelligent that has created anything more fantastic than all of creation.

But, 'willfull?' I don't know, you don't know, we don't know(because we're intelligent, and can not know some things.)

It's amazing how clever packaging can muck up a good debate. If they would have just called it 'willfull design' in the first place, I think the intent would have been clearer. But, IMO, it is an abuse of the word 'intelligent' to claim that the factual creation of all of the Universe , with us in it, was not an intelligent act. I just don't believe acknowledging that fact sheds any light on the big question; was it willful, by a sentient Super Being? That seems to be an important question only to sentient non-super beings. It's not clear at all if it's an important question to whatever created those sentient non-super beings.

The dictionary doesn't help much with this, as always.

 

[Tisthammerw]

Books and similar publications are not peer reviewed and so they are next to useless in any unbiased, scientific debate.

Nonetheless from what I've read Ratzsch accurately represented contemporary philosophy of science when he described it. Incidentally, Dembski’s book The Design Inference was heavily peer reviewed before it was published.

That's one of the problems with ID. It was in fact started just a few decades ago, not hundreds of years ago

You need to brush up on your history. ID in its modern form is only a few decades old yes, but its more general existence as a theory predates the 20th century (e.g. William Paley).

The term wasn't around until just recently. It was created by creationists that lost any hope of getting creationism put into schools. It was created by religious fundamentalists that saw an angle on creationism that might put God back in the classroom.

What about Behe for instance? He is a Roman Catholic (not a fundamentalist) and had no religious objections to evolution. Do you wish to conduct an ad hominem attack on his character as well? And on what grounds do you believe the theory that life was artificially created to be creationism? How do you define creationism?

 

[loseyourname]

I am not sure you get my point. I was talking about the raw trait of consciousness, and not as manifested in humans. I've argued before that it is anthropomorphic to see human consciousness as what defines the entire realm of consciousness.

Part of the problem with your proposed explanation is that equivocate on intelligence and consciousness. You start with the premise that intelligence has been observed to have the potential for organizing and structuring, then conclude that pure consciousness (bereft of human intelligence) could have been responsible for organization of matter into living creatures. That is a logically unfounded leap. Pure consciousness is nothing but subjective experience. It doesn't do anything so far as we know. We can argue for days about whether or not phenomenal consciousness has causal properties, but the point is that it certainly does not have the same causal properties as intelligence. People recovering from a severe stroke or head trauma often cannot add one plus one, much less figure out how to create life, but they are certainly still conscious.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Part of the problem with your proposed explanation is that [you] equivocate on intelligence and consciousness.

Hey, give me a chance to equivocate before accusing me of it! However, I am not going to equivocate one millimeter.

You start with the premise that intelligence has been observed to have the potential for organizing and structuring, then conclude that pure consciousness (bereft of human intelligence) could have been responsible for organization of matter into living creatures.

Where have I ever said “pure consciousness bereft of human intelligence” is responsible for the progressive organization found in creation? (I have said it is possible to experience pure consciousness.) I am saying that consciousness is where the potential for growth and learning occurs, not intelligence which is a skill that can be developed and used by consciousness.

That is a logically unfounded leap. Pure consciousness is nothing but subjective experience. It doesn't do anything so far as we know.

How is it logically unfounded when you cannot demonstrate one single instance of intelligence that consciousness isn’t behind? A computer program? Nope because human consciousness was present and guiding things when that was developed; plus programmed intelligence, even if capable of some learning, cannot develop much past its programming and so is rather stupid compared to conscious intelligence.

I say, since we know of no intelligence not embedded in or developed by consciousness, it is not a leap in logic to infer that intelligence is a derivative of consciousness. And if there is a “universal consciousness,” and it has been around at least as long as our universe, then it’s had plenty of time to develop intelligence skills.

We can argue for days about whether or not phenomenal consciousness has causal properties, but the point is that it certainly does not have the same causal properties as intelligence.

The only people who will argue for days (centuries even) are rationalists who are so caught up in their intellects they can’t stop thinking long enough to experience what they (as consciousness) are behind that thinking. Consider this. What if thinking ties up the “stuff” of consciousness? Analogously, say I was trying to convince a conscious snowflake that it’s base nature is water. The snowflake can never see it while in “form” as a snowflake. But if it could learn to melt for a bit, then it would experience it’s non-form condition and see what is more basic about itself.

Similarly, consciousness that is always in the “form” of intellect cannot see what it is when not in form. Unlike a snow flake, allowing the intellect to “melt” doesn’t eliminate our ability to resurrect it when needed. One has to stop the mental juggernaut to experience what mind is forming out of, to see what mind ties up by never shutting up, and to know what that base consciousness is.

In any case, you won’t catch me arguing for days about it because 1) someone who doesn’t know what his base nature is isn’t going to accept my proposals about the nature of the self, and 2) no matter what I say to a devoted rationalist about the futility of grasping the nature of consciousness by thinking will only be thought about.

People recovering from a severe stroke or head trauma often cannot add one plus one, much less figure out how to create life, but they are certainly still conscious.

That’s right, so how do you interpret that? Isn’t it clear that consciousness is more basic? You can lose intellect and be conscious, but you can’t lose consciousness and manifest your intellect.

A quick "intellegence assisted" hypothesis for why brain damage is so devastating to the more basic consciousness. A universal consciousness wishing to create new individual consciousnesses might dedicate a portion of itself to biological forms. Because the “portion” in biology is just one point and not the whole universal consciousness, it is “generally developed” (rather than individually developed) consciousness. The forms’ CNS creates a sense of separation, give that “general” consciousness its first experience of an individual self, and then the brain teaches it how to segment and organize an area of consciousness so it can learn to reason. Because we are totally dependent on the CNS for individuation and the organizational skills it gives, damage to the brain results in what we see.

 

[QuantumTheory]

Intelligent design is nothing but a veiled attempt to argue that we were created by an omnipotent being. So let's see how intelligent our design really is.
A human being has many bad design components.
The human eye was designed to last about 50 years. The eye is filled with a gel sac that shrinks quite a bit by age 50. This shrinkage sometimes results in torn retina's that, until recent times, caused blindness. Not a big deal because the average life span then was about 50 years so it went pretty much unnoticed. If an omipotent designer had designed the eye you would think it would take into account the fact that we would eventually have a much longer lifespan than 50 years. Especially if he was the Christian God who designed earlier humans to live hundreds of years like Moses and his buddies.
What about designing us with skin full of holes (pores) that are perfectly designed to harbor bacteria and cause many people much grief?
Then there are inadequate muscles and tendons that tear and break easily.
The biggest design element of the human being that makes intelligent design unlikely is the fact that our brain is split into 2 halves and requires a nerve bridge between them to act somewhat in unison. While this may be a good design, it isn't the way an omnipotent designer would make the vessel of a soul. If you want a container to hold something that must not be divided, you don't design it with 2 compartments. 2 compartments can and will be split. The nerve bridge between the halves of the human brain has been cut in operations and these people in effect have two separate consciousnesses. You might argue that the soul is still in one body but it is inevitable that someone will take half a brain from someone and transplant it in another body. If this isn't splitting the soul, if it exists, then you will have to invoke some crazy logic like quantum entanglement to explain the soul not being split too. That would be stretching logic quite a bit.
Taking all this into account shows that the intelligent designer wasn't too intelligent, much less omnipotent. All of the above can easily be explained by evolution and natural selection though.
I think another bit of evidence against intelligent design is the fact that the universe works by the laws of logic. That's right, logic implies a natural universe, not a created one. Why would an omnipotent being create a logical universe, just because he could? It would be better for his purposes to create a universe of magic and chaos where there were no logical physical laws. There would be no need for an infinite universe. The stars only need to be lights in the heaven. Another words, the universe only needs to be what people thought it was when religions were created. The logic of the universe has only become apparent in recent history, long after religion was invented.

Wow, I just realized. The only reason this thread wasn't locked/deleted was because the orginial post was AGIANST religion, agianst evolution, etc. I believe in every other scientific principal but not evolution.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Wow, I just realized. The only reason this thread wasn't locked/deleted was because the orginial post was AGIANST religion, agianst evolution, etc. I believe in every other scientific principal but not evolution.

What is it you don't believe?

• That genetic variation doesn't occur?
• That phenotypic selection doesn't occur?
• That they occur but speciation doesn't follow?
• or something else?

 

[Microburst]

Intelligent evolution is the answer.

 

[Microburst]

I say it's 'intelligent evolution' ...
I don’t get the reasoning behind this debit at all, ID in realty masks the answer by dropping the ball in creators court. We are intelligent so our creator must be intelligent, but let's not stop there, since our creator is intelligent his creator must be even more intelligent and so on… circular logic…. Vs. what if there is no creator, what if things create themselves, matter is basically energy, where does this energy come from? Hummm is there such a thing as nothing? Does absolutely nothing exists? Everything was created at big bang, and one thing led to another and here we are, what caused a big bang, you mean things existed before big bang? What’s next does nonexistence create existence, or does a creator create existence?

 

[hypnagogue]

Wow, I just realized. The only reason this thread wasn't locked/deleted was because the orginial post was AGIANST religion, agianst evolution, etc.

You are absolutely wrong about this; I will not bother to respond, other than to say that I think your posting history has made it clear that you are the one with the personal agenda here. But in any case, this is not the place to be airing your personal gripes, as you should know from the PF global guidelines. Any further posts that are in violation of this rule will be deleted, so please don't waste your time.

 

[loseyourname]

Sorry I never responded to this. Completely forgot about it.

Where have I ever said “pure consciousness bereft of human intelligence” is responsible for the progressive organization found in creation?

Well, you certainly haven't said that human intelligence is responsible for evolution or abiogenesis. I inferred that your hypothesis was that your 'pure consciousness' entity is what you think is responsible.

How is it logically unfounded when you cannot demonstrate one single instance of intelligence that consciousness isn’t behind?

Let me take my best at the argument you're presenting. Feel free to revise it if you think I've got it wrong.

1. Intelligence is capable of progressive organization.
2. Intelligence is never manifested without consciousness.
Therefore, consciousness is capable of progressive organization.

That still doesn't give us a valid argument, even if we accept the truth of 2. I think it's worth making explicit that I'm not arguing that intelligence can be manifested without consciousness (though I do think it can be), only that the fact that intelligence has certain properties doesn't mean that consciousness has those same properties. That's the leap that you seem to be making.

And if there is a “universal consciousness,” and it has been around at least as long as our universe, then it’s had plenty of time to develop intelligence skills.

So that's where you're headed then. You think the consciousness behind the beginning of life was intelligent? Since you're keen on dismissing any conclusion derived rationally rather than empirically, what empirical basis do you have for concluding that?

That’s right, so how do you interpret that?

That it's possible to be conscious without being intelligent. It's probably trivial to give an example to prove that because no one is likely to argue contrarily, but I like to cover all my bases.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What is it you don't believe?

• That genetic variation doesn't occur?
• That phenotypic selection doesn't occur?
• That they occur but speciation doesn't follow?
• or something else?

If you don't mind, I would like to answer since I think you ask the right questions. I believe:

[*]That genetic variation does occur.
[*]That phenotypic selection does occur.
[*]That they occur AND speciation does follow.

Here's what I don't believe yet because I don't see sufficient evidence (i.e., not because I am opposed to it being true):

[*]That accidental genetic variation (in partership with natural selection) will result in enough positive changes to "create" an organ.

If an organ can't be shown to develop via genetic variation-natural selection, then how can we jump to the conclusion that an organism can be created that way?

You know, even Darwin jumped to the conclusion that all aspects of biology developed by way of genetic variation-natural selection from seeing little more than bird beak adaptation.

It is entirely possible that there is an automatic adaptive mechanism built into biology which only adjusts for immediate survivability and sexual attractiveness. That, however, is an entirely different issue than what it takes to create a high-functioning organ.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I inferred that your hypothesis was that your 'pure consciousness' entity is what you think is responsible.
Let me take my best at the argument you're presenting. Feel free to revise it if you think I've got it wrong.
1. Intelligence is capable of progressive organization.
2. Intelligence is never manifested without consciousness.
Therefore, consciousness is capable of progressive organization.

As you pointed out earlier, consciousness is not the same as intelligence. We seem to nearly agree that consciousness is self/subjective awareness. We can observe a snail slithering around making choices about where to go and claim it is conscious simply because it appears to manifest will (believe me, I know the appearance of will doesn't mean will is present). My point is that consciousness is more basic, and for that reason we can more easily allow it in critters than intelligence.
I am suggesting that the instant you observe a critter organizing things beyond what has been observed by pure mechanics alone, that critter has exhibited intelligence. So rather than your statement "Intelligence is capable of progressive organization" I might say, "intelligence IS progressive organization."

That still doesn't give us a valid argument, even if we accept the truth of 2.

Yes but it is your syllogism, not mine.
My statement is a level more simple and might go something like:
1. Intelligence is never manifested without consciousness.
Therefore, consciousness is the source of intelligence.

I think it's worth making explicit that I'm not arguing that intelligence can be manifested without consciousness (though I do think it can be) . . .

Example/evidence please. Remember, you have to keep human intervention out of the example altogether. I am willing to stick my neck out fully here and claim there is not one single known example in this universe of intelligence which consciousness hasn't participated in.

. . . only that the fact that intelligence has certain properties doesn't mean that consciousness has those same properties.

I've never said they have the same properties. I said that intelligence arises out of consciousness. Ice can be said to arise out of liquid water, but that doesn't mean they have identical properties.

You think the consciousness behind the beginning of life was intelligent? Since you're keen on dismissing any conclusion derived rationally rather than empirically, what empirical basis do you have for concluding that?

Well, if you aspire to be a philosopher you can't decide a priori that empirical epistomology is the end-all in knowing. Why must sense experience (the basis of empiricism) be the only acceptable experience that leads to knowing? I have repeatedly claimed there is at least one other avenue to knowing, and even have said that I value it over what sense data let's me know. I have also repeatedly offered evidence of others who have claimed the same thing throughout human history.