The Passion...

[ScottotD]

I'd have no problem with all that 'intelligent design' crap if they were honest and just called it magic.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

do you know what the argument ACTUALLY is for it?  Even if you dont use the word god and fill in the word magic, you are still left with an intelligent intentionally acting magic.  Id be fine with that version too. 

[dribbleglass]

If "intelligent design" and Creationism where taught in a theology/philosophy context that's well and good. What the proponents of ID want is equal time in SCIENCE class. There's the rub...

ID is a joke to all serious scientists. All this talk about blood-clotting matrices and the impossibility of the development the eye is a red herring. "Irreducible complexity" my white butt. The proponents of this 'theory' have nothing but a few mathematical and statistical tricks up their sleeves. I have read a good deal into this, (of course, I'm kind of an idiot, but never mind that), and this is thinly veiled pseudo-scientific anti-intellectual claptrap that has no place in a science classroom.

Science may not probe the 'why', but rather the 'how', as another poster on this thread said so well. Is there a purpose to the universe or a Creator? Who knows? If any empirical evidence ever becomes available, scientists will jump at the chance to study it. In the mean time, it is a philosophical question, and by definition unanswerable.

I don't mean to suggest that we abandon these questions, but only that we leave them in the realm of theology and philosophy until such a time as the Scientific Method which has served humanity so well can address it  through a theory and testable phenomena.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

ID is a joke to all serious scientists. All this talk about blood-clotting matrices and the impossibility of the development the eye is a red herring. "Irreducible complexity" my white butt. The proponents of this 'theory' have nothing but a few mathematical and statistical tricks up their sleeves. I have read a good deal into this, (of course, I'm kind of an idiot, but never mind that), and this is thinly veiled pseudo-scientific anti-intellectual claptrap that has no place in a science classroom.

yeah all that math is irrelevant bah to math. 

tell ya what I wont make dumb statements like "science is constantly proving itself wrong look at the flat earth people"  if you refrain from absurd statements like:

In the mean time, it is a philosophical question, and by definition unanswerable.

you are basically ignoring my point that theology and logic (both branches of philosophy) has a value that has been ignored for a very long period of time. 

[dribbleglass]

I don't mean to ignore your point. Please don't take offense.

I'm just saying you can play some tricks with numbers and mathematics which, while logical in a purely mathematical framework, do not describe the natural world.

Philosophy is anthropomorphic, and there is no reason to think  it is a human universe. If a tree falls in a vacant forest it may not make a sound, but the smart money says it vibrates the air.

Cheers!

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

I don't mean to ignore your point. Please don't take offense.

dont worry man i never do

Philosophy is anthropomorphic, and there is no reason to think  it is a human universe. If a tree falls in a vacant forest it may not make a sound, but the smart money says it vibrates the air

im sorry but you are completely uneducated in the matter of philosophy.  As such i dont think you really know what it is or in what manner its useful.  Philosophy is the argument.  it is the study of argument.  As such many things that cant be observed (in other words science cant touch them) are in philosophy.  But at its core its nothing more than logical application. 

The tree falls in a forest questions only value is to show an example of how something might not exist without something else to perceive it.  The argument is that wether or not it makes a noise is unknowable without something there to perceive it.  you cant even make the argument it vibrates the air (which is what noise is) without being there to perceive it. 

Of course the pragmatist (another type of philosophic argument) would say that the fact that its unknowable is not relavant.  When a tree does fall and a person is near it, its always been true that it has made a sound therefore the practical view is to assume that a tree always makes a sound. 

The whole point here is to understand how argument is set up.  but i will end my poorly constructed rant now

while logical in a purely mathematical framework, do not describe the natural world.

actually according to everything ive ever been taught math PERFECTLY describes the natural world. 

[dribbleglass]

Mathematics is a human invention. It is a versatile and useful tool, but it is not a "perfect" description of anything.

You do make an interesting point about the observer paradox. It is very present in the uncertainty surrounding the phenomena observed in the realm of the ultra-small. Quantum Mechanics is the human mathematical tool we've devised to explain and predict these phenomena. It is very useful, but it remains unreconciled with Special and General Relativity, and is not a perfect theory.

Here's to long-head cypherin'...

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

It is very useful, but it remains unreconciled with Special and General Relativity, and is not a perfect theory.

yeah ive heard that, crazy. 

Mathematics is a human invention. It is a versatile and useful tool, but it is not a "perfect" description of anything

so would science too be imperfect.  I wont bother with the logical paradox of mentioning anything imperfect in world where we cannot find a single example of perfection.  But i would point out that math whole purpose is to supplement and augment science in being our representative of the natural world. 

[ScottotD]

do you know what the argument ACTUALLY is for it?  Even if you dont use the word god and fill in the word magic, you are still left with an intelligent intentionally acting magic.  Id be fine with that version too. 

If you want your kids to be taught religion, take them to a church.  I don't see why everyone else's time needs to be wasted.

[dribbleglass]

I suppose mathemtics could be adapted to describe almost anything, but what the ID proponents do is use odds to try to calculate things like the likelihood of the parts of a Jumbo Jet randomly falling together into a working airplane. Then they (rightly) point out that a living organism is much more complicated still. This is the argument from "irreducible complexity". Then they argue that because the odds against this are so astronomical, there must therefore be an intelligent Creator behind the development of living things on Earth. This is a cheap trick, because it does not describe the situation. No one suggests complex life-forms fell together randomly.

The origin of life is a mystery, but the progression of living things from simpler to more complex forms over billions of years, through the process of natural selection of random mutations in accordance to their suitability to the environment can account for  the development of life on earth. Given billions of organisms, billions of years, not to mention hundreds of billions of suns with who-knows-how-many planets in over a hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe, we do not need to postulate an intelligent designer to explain life on Earth. There may be one, who knows, but that is not something evident from the data.

The basic building blocks of primitive life exist all over the universe. Amino-acids, tholine, hydrocarbons...

Lovin' is what I got...

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

If you want your kids to be taught religion, take them to a church.  I don't see why everyone else's time needs to be wasted.

you missed/ignored my point entirely

This is a cheap trick, because it does not describe the situation

No its a logical argument and not a scientific one.  see my point about philosophy

No one suggests complex life-forms fell together randomly.

The origin of life is a mystery, but the progression of living things from simpler to more complex forms over billions of years, through the process of natural selection of random mutations in accordance to their suitability to the environment can account for  the development of life on earth. Given billions of organisms, billions of years, not to mention hundreds of billions of suns with who-knows-how-many planets in over a hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe, we do not need to postulate an intelligent designer to explain life on Earth. There may be one, who knows, but that is not something evident from the data.

This too is basically a logical argument.  However i miss where a lack of an intentional mind behind things, isnt a random process.  Even if it takes millions of years its still millions of years of randomness.  Thats the crux of the ID argument.

[dribbleglass]

But that's the point! It isn't a logical argument! Darwin's is a solid theory with overwhelming evidence in the form of the fossil record, DNA, and so much more.  Natural selection is NOT a random process. It is a highly selective process. Any given mutation may be random, but its suitability to the organism is tested in a very non-random process.

I'm not saying there is no intelligent designer. I'm just saying one is not necessary to explain the development of life on Earth, and that there is no credible evidence of one.

Occam's razor...

[Tyrant]

I'm not saying there is no intelligent designer. I'm just saying one is not necessary to explain the development of life on Earth, and that there is no credible evidence of one.

Occam's razor...

  Well, that's the whole point of faith. If God went around proving His existance and all of us had no doubt, there wouldn't be much to debate/research, would there? And then where's the fun? Where's the progress? Where's our freedom of thought?

  As for credible evidence of a creator, I would beg to argue. You stated that mathmatics was a human invention. I would say that, yes, our symbols representing mathmatics is a human invention, but the true underlying mathmatics of nature, physics, and our universe existed long before we did. We just happened to give it a name and a symbol system so we can communicate and research with it. We just brought it down to our level of understanding. Does this mathmatical system prove there's a Creator? I think so. But if no one else does, that's their business.

   You stated earlier in this thread that a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. I believe that can run both ways on this debate. Replace the word 'hear' with 'see' and it becomes even more accurate.

[torgosPizza]

If God went around proving His existance and all of us had no doubt, there wouldn't be much to debate/research, would there? And then where's the fun? Where's the progress? Where's our freedom of thought?

Why would god require faith? I really don't like the idea of an omniscient being playing games with his creation that he loves so much. Why would he make us run around and doubt him in order to have belief? Why isn't enough just to be a good person, in order to have an eternal reward?

But that's the point! It isn't a logical argument! Darwin's is a solid theory with overwhelming evidence in the form of the fossil record, DNA, and so much more.  Natural selection is NOT a random process. It is a highly selective process. Any given mutation may be random, but its suitability to the organism is tested in a very non-random process.

I'm not saying there is no intelligent designer. I'm just saying one is not necessary to explain the development of life on Earth, and that there is no credible evidence of one.

Occam's razor...

I agree with you. Darwin's theories are often misrepresented by the religious argument as "random chance" when it is, in fact, the exact opposite. I think asking any evolutionary biologist about "random chance" would probably elicit an offended response.

However I don't think Occam's razor applies here. It's interesting to me that the argument for god is always because "the world is so ordered, it must require a designer." I don't agree with explaining away complex life processes by positing the idea of an even more complex, creator-type being. For many that is the "simplest solution" but, is it really? The idea of an omniscient, complex being, that must have been created by some kind of natural process on its own, is not as simple an idea as Occam's razor might attempt to describe.

[RandyMistie]

That's what I like about my religion.  I can see my Goddess everyday.  I have an apple tree in my yard.  There She is.  I watch birds and squirrels and my cats and say, "There She is..."

The Sun the Moon, the Stars all bear my seal, OH YEAH!

She clothes us, feeds us, shelters us, and we like Her for it.  Hopefully, She likes us back, or else we get a hurricane up our asses!  HAHA!!

Plus, we can still love science, because nothing in science threatens the Goddess.  No origin myth or afterlife myth.  Scientists are just trying to find out more about Her and how She works.

But, whatever...  Just love each other, and take care of each other, I say.