Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Becoming bipedal came with a price. There is an inherent weakness and vulnerability in our lower back and many people, including myself, have suffered from this condition.
same here. i hate back pain.
now, to the post:
rifleman, it seems that the title of the thread is somewhat misleading, in that it is really only addressing one (albeit, the majority) intelligent deisgn ideology.
i am loathe to claim that i believe in intelligent design for the reason that it has become synonymous with one, specific brand of christian belief, and in order for anyone else to claim belief in intelligent design, they have to explain that they don't fit the standard description. i liked the old days when i could say that i believe in intelligent design without it carrying all of the stereotyped baggage that it does nowadays.
i believe that we were created intelligently, by a designer with a very specific goal, and therefore, very specific guidelines as to what He created, as well as the hows, and whys. but i don't accept the dogma of the nicene creed and the plethora of doctrines that have followed. that means to me that God certainly designed *the plan* perfectly, but that required that creation become imperfect. therefore, birth defects, face-eating bacteria, food allergens, mental impairments, vicious predators, and every other aspect of an imperfect, mortal world were all part of the design. i am not alone in these beliefs either; in fact, i may have met more christians that believe in evolution than i have those that do not (at least since moving away from georgia/virginia/north carolina).
therefore, in order to logically continue this conversation, we should clarify the op, as to whether we mean to provide a logical case against intelligent design in its current, political incarnation (as it seems more of a political tool of late than a doctrine of faith), or against intelligent design in the mere statement that someone believes that we were created by an intelligent creator.
My answer to this issue is complicated . . . but yes I credit a design and a designer that I prefer to call God. The problems reconciling science and religion over this issue arise largely from the unwarranted nonsense attributed to God . . things like perfection and all the Omni's. They might be true . . . but we haven't the foggiest idea whether they are or not.The major stumbling blocks to our understanding are human hubris and cynicism. The God contingent has a well-developed ethos about what a God MUST be like . . . what attributes are essential to qualify as God, etc. This is the hubris. The science contingent has a well-developed aversion to anything God-centric due to historical factors (dealing with the hubris of the aforementioned authoritarian "autocrats" within the God contingent). This is the cynicism. The result is the festering schism that exists between science and religion.
We cannot possibly know what all the attributes of God are, period . . . whatever we would prefer to demand they be in the unwarranted hubris of the God contingent. But neither can we allow the completely warranted cynicism of the science contingent to just assign those attributes we can determine to some abstract meaningless all- encompassing and all-powerful entity called "Nature."The mysterious and unknown entity is the same for both contingents . . . we simply have a name and attribute problem.
The God contingent maintains that they have received over the millennia information from this God through right brain inspiration and intuition that causes them to add untestable attributes, etc. to what we actually have learned through the left brain efforts of science. The symbolic, visual, and non-verbal nature of the right brain information produced problems in translating to left brain verbal concepts. This was exascerbated by the primitive minds and extremely limited knowledge of those who initially received this information, the repeated oral transmission of same, and the limitations and biases of those who recorded it. The subsequent re-translations into various languages resulted in additional translation difficulties and confusion. The scriptural fossil record is replete with these alternative descriptions and explanations of this information.
The science contingent after suffering egregiously under the hubris of the God contingent rightfully severed all ties and continues to tenaciously discover as many attributes of this God as they can. The discrepancies with the descriptions and attributes of the God contingent grew to such a degree that normal reasonable minds simply could no longer accept those promoted by the God contingent and the rejection gradually became more and more overt. First they replaced God with the more conservative attributes of "Nature" and God's laws with "laws of nature" and God's processes with "natural" processes. Even when they found evidence of design (Constants, DNA, RNA, etc.) they steadfastly refused to allow the God contingent to ever get a foothold again . . . so they covered up their ignorance with the artifical mathematical rubric created in our minds. Mathematics had proven to be a wonderful tool for discovering God's attributes and predicting things.
Using this powerfull tool of mathematics they created the artificial ideas of randomness complete with mathematical proofs and exemplars which have been enormously fruitful in covering up our ignorance and still enabling us to "probabilistically" predict things whose causal chains we haven't the foggiest idea about. We also created the law of large numbers using similar rationale enabling us to completely eliminate any consideration of a designer other than our mathematical constructs. All very scientific sounding and impressive . . . but still utter ignorance.
Eventually the science contingent's cynicism became reinforced with hubris as the power of this new tool was evidenced by increasing discoveries and advancements. Einstein . . . a remarkably insightful and creative physicist . . . was the most responsible for a disconnect from true empiricism and the elevation of mathematics as the basis for theory. He is quoted as saying:
. . . the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed.
(Little did he realize how true the bolded part would become, IMO.) The simple truth amid this conflict (IMO) is that there is no scientific basis for eliminating the concept of God and calling it Nature . . . except for the unremitting hostility created between the God and science contingents. It is all about preferences and conflicting descriptions . . . not the underlying mysterious all-encompassing reality that "just is." My two cents.
so the argument is that it's not designed to your standards?
Is that it?
What is interesting is that most of mankind's scientific accomplishments are copies of things they have studied and researched in the natural world and indeed even things in our universe which are said to have origins from blind chance. Yet when men copy the mechanisms in nature such as radar, sonar, flight, construction techniques, etc and put them to use for their own useful or even selfish purpose, they arrogantly call it something they invented & designed.
Beyond this, it is merely a waste of time hoping for some intelligent discussion on these matters in threads which were clearly motivated to obtain the opposite. If you really believe you have something of real worth and value, and I believe you do, then consider Jesus recommendation here in his famous "Sermon on the Mount".
Matthew 7:6 - "Today's New International version"
Quote:
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do , they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear YOU to pieces."
I know it's sometimes tough to resist, but try it. You'll feel alot better!
The simple truth amid this conflict (IMO) is that there is no scientific basis for eliminating the concept of God and calling it Nature . . . except for the unremitting hostility created between the God and science contingents. It is all about preferences and conflicting descriptions . . . not the underlying mysterious all-encompassing reality that "just is." My two cents.
Your analysis is quite good, almost convincing, but IMO you do take a couple of wrong turns. The only evidence of a God mythology is simply that there were some authors who wrote that they believed this was THE answer to what they thought was going on. Nothing else. No actual miracles, but plenty of credit given to a God for probable natural catastrophies, meteorite showers, super-Novas, the odd ice-dam breakage leading to a mind-boggling flood, etc., but nothing else. This is coupled with what appears to be a near-pathological need to not have the rug pulled out from under the spiritual world that people have so carefully and intricately built since their indoctrination into this stuff at childhood Sunday school sessions.
The scientific "bias" that you refer to, as it presently exists, is in fact somewhat predicated on the documented history of past failings by the religious community to provide anything other than fall-back, bumper-sticker and finally, "God Works in Mysterious Ways" explanations. Science, having been pulled into many appealing but eventually illogical debates, having then proved out these too-obvious fallacies and logical trip-ups, is, in the end, told "Oh Yeah? Well, Your Mother Wears Combat Boots!" as the final answer. We just left a post, closed by the moderator tonight, because one of the proponents of ID, who started out being at least partially rational, went pretty much off the deep end, into name calling, with insulting photos, etc.
It's thus hard to forget one's past predjudices, and to take any of it seriously. The threats to our educational system, however, are quite real (as in Louisiana). The truth about ID is it's simply re-hashed Creationism trying to hide from being discovered as a blatant and obvious religious doctrine. If it were to be correctly tagged so (which, BTW, the Supreme Courts of more than one state have correctly identified it to be) it thus becomes a religious opinion, absent ANY supporting logical credibility, and is therefore inelligible for inclusion in an objective empirical scientific curriculum under the First Amendment. As we say in science, QED!
As to the intent of my original OP, it is, in fact, to point out yet some more holes in the fabric of distortion and mis-representation, along with some good reasons why it's unlikely, indeed silly, that this world could have been designed by some intelligent designer. All just because it's too hard for the casual untrained layman, especially one who has been taught some other, more huggy-snuggy options, to understand. Nor do they apparently wish to, by the evidence in these discussions.
One wonders just how bored such a person would be, setting all of this up to then sit idly by and watch us have at each other. It speaks of vast human arrogance to assume we're all that important, but that philosophical discussion actually deserves it's very own post.
But I'll conclude my argument points with my final detailed entry:
C. Some more problems with ID:
3. Ever had a kidney stone? Yes, they form to the problem level in some other animals, most notably but infrequently in cats, but in general it’s not a problem. Why not? In fact the precursor micro-crystals in our kidneys are almost always flushed out with normal kidney urinary excretion in animals where the outlet of the kidney allows it. It’s facing more or less down in four-footed animals or even the higher primates. The tiny pre-stones just naturally circle the drain, so to speak, and are gone before they can build to a problematic size. Not so for humans.
Unfortunately except for us. (I’ve had a bunch of them! >135!). Our rapid transition to upright hominids resulted in our kidneys being now positioned with the once downwards facing outlet now facing horizontally, and worse still, it’s up at the top of the kidney.
Our little crystals get to hang around and grow into big problematic stones. Tough luck, and pass the Oxycontins!.
4. A growing number of people require optical correction. Why not design our eyes to be consistently properly functioning, like most of the other systems in our bodies?
So, you staunch naysayers and ID supporters smugly inquire, why don’t we just evolve these problems away? You scientists tell us that Evolution is so powerful, after all.
Because we no longer (for the most part) allow our environment to manage us; we just manage our environment. We have spinal fusion back surgery, we cut away those cysts that form under the vestigial tailbone, and we have yet another ultrasound lithotripsy on our stones. We have Lasik, or we simply wear cumbersome external lens systems to correct the flaws in The Perfect Design.
Next time you go to bended knees in the Church, and your back hurts on your struggling attempt to rise again, picture how a chimpanzee, even an aged one, would do in such a maneuver. Now there's an intelligently evolved and successful organism.
We humans are just too new on the evolutionary block, so to speak. In automotive engineering terms, we're the NSU RO 80 Wankel-engined sedan of evolved mammals The NSU, though very advanced in concept, was quite beyond it's time due to it being rushed in to retail sale before all the bugs were worked out of it. And by exact comparison, the evolution of Wankel technology specifically by Mazda of Japan, who persisted in trying a huge number of solution "mutations", finally got it right in the mid-'90s.
Regarding our physical frailties and their genesis, these obvious facts, these objective observances and explanations, offer far more believable proof of evolution than any fantasies of the ID crew. This is patently obvious even ignoring the recent proofs of speciation through adaptation of positive mutations done with several species of bacteria. To ignore them or to come up with oddball excuses is, well, a bit frantic or stubborn, wouldn’t you agree?
And finally, when you fully understand the evil intent of ID proponents, which is to ram a poorly camoflaged, unprovable and illogical mythology down the throats and minds of very impressionable and malleable children, (who have also been taught to respect and trust their teachers), to the possible exclusion of a scientific curriculum, you begin to see the urgent need to suppress this nonsense.
And when you also discover that under such a curriculum, even if they would allow some mention of "It's Just A Theory" Evolution (false, of course, and universally accepted now), they would also absolutely require that all the objections that Christians have against evolutionary processes be carefully detailed and outlined without further discussion. And yet no similar discussion would be allowed of the very obvious flaws in ID.
And Christians speak of science's biases?
Interestingly, a study I'll try to find noted that a group of young open-minded adults in high school, when presented with a carefully developed logical and unbiased summary of both ID and evolution as the origins not of life but of speciation, always, by a huge margin, found the evolution "package" and evidence far more believable and logical. They fully accepted the scientific proofs of same. The only way that ID could be successfully taught (i.e: thus creating converts or believers) was to systematically bias the presentation, to openly ridicule and purposefully lie about Evolution, and to minimize the unprovable and illogical aspects of ID. Very "Christian", wouldn't you agree?
The Horror! The Horror!
Last edited by rifleman; 02-06-2009 at 02:02 AM..
Reason: typos, clarity
Your analysis is quite good, almost convincing, but IMO you do take a couple of wrong turns. The only evidence of a God mythology is simply that there were some authors who wrote that they believed this was THE answer to what they thought was going on. Nothing else. No actual miracles, but plenty of credit given to a God for probable natural catastrophies, meteorite showers, super-Novas, the odd ice-dam breakage leading to a mind-boggling flood, etc., but nothing else. This is coupled with what appears to be a near-pathological need to not have the rug pulled out from under the spiritual world that people have so carefully and intricately built since their indoctrination into this stuff at childhood Sunday school sessions.
The scientific "bias" that you refer to, as it presently exists, is in fact somewhat predicated on the documented history of past failings by the religious community to provide anything other than fall-back, bumper-sticker and finally, "God Works in Mysterious Ways" explanations. Science, having been pulled into many appealing but eventually illogical debates, having then proved out these too-obvious fallacies and logical trip-ups, is, in the end, told "Oh Yeah? Well, Your Mother Wears Combat Boots!" as the final answer. We just left a post, closed by the moderator tonight, because one of the proponents of ID, who started out being at least partially rational, went pretty much off the deep end, into name calling, with insulting photos, etc.
I disagree that I took any wrong turns and your post actually seems to confirm that. I concur in your condemnation Of ID as propounded by the Discovery Institue, et al, Creationism (whether young earth or not) as unfit for a science curriculum. My concern is not with those would-be religious infiltrators into science. I am simply calling for a retention of the baby from that dirty bath water. There is NO difference in the god-like character and lack of knowledge about your Nature God than the myraid other gods of the religions of the world EXCEPT for the described attributes.
I assert (quite forcefully) that we have no idea what ALL the attributes are of ANY version of God (whether Nature or whatever) EXCEPT for those assertained by science. EVERYTHING else is debatable and should be left that way WITHOUT accepting as a default the science preferred "Nature" God version. What is wrong with an honest overt assertion that "We don't know" instead of the scientific masquerade using mathematics. NONE of the many versions are falsifiable including Nature. "It just is" is in no way an explanation or justification nor are the artifices of randomness and law of large numbers.
There has to be a Universal field establishing the metrics we observe repeatedly in the universe and which we model in our artificial mathematical rubric. That field has to be established by something. Consciousness as a composite exists within such a field and we have ample evidence that consciousness exists. It is as plausible as any scientific default to believe that the universal field is a consciousness . . . or do you have a more plausible source for it, Rifleman?
Quote:
It's thus hard to forget one's past prejudices, and to take any of it seriously. The threats to our educational system, however, are quite real (as in Louisiana). The truth about ID is it's simply re-hashed Creationism trying to hide from being discovered as a blatant and obvious religious doctrine. If it were to be correctly tagged so (which, BTW, the Supreme Courts of more than one state have correctly identified it to be) it thus becomes a religious opinion, absent ANY supporting logical credibility, and is therefore inelligible for inclusion in an objective empirical scientific curriculum under the First Amendment. As we say in science, QED!
Religion has no place in science . . . agreed . . . so why create a new religion as the default and call it Nature as if there were any explanatory power in such diversion? Simply and overtly and unambiguously admit we haven't the foggiest idea what Nature (God) is or why it is . . . instead of masquerading "explanations" under a mathematical charade.
Quote:
As to the intent of my original OP, it is, in fact, to point out yet some more holes in the fabric of distortion and mis-representation, along with some good reasons why it's unlikely, indeed silly, that this world could have been designed by some intelligent designer. All just because it's too hard for the casual untrained layman, especially one who has been taught some other, more huggy-snuggy options, to understand. Nor do they apparently wish to, by the evidence in these discussions.
Other than your presumptions about what and why the design is as it is based on physical characteristics . . . you have no basis to logically refute any of it. The purpose has nothing to do with the physical . . . it is the production of consciousness life that is the purpose. You are analyzing a TV set as if it was merely a physical "machine" . . . with no knowledge of the "signals" it is designed to process and display.
Are we the Mark I, the one that the Warranty Costs Per Unit Retailed was a bit high? Is this Mark I design something that he's therefore a bit ashamed of, like GM is of the Citation, the Cimmaron, the Vega, the Oldsmobile diesels, the.... well, you get the picture.
Is the glorious body you speak of the Mark II? As always, the PR & marketing guys tantalize us all with stories about "Next Year's Longer, Lower, Wider Model", eh?
It's like we're currently the Cyberdyne Systems Series 800 Model 101, and we'll be morphing into the Cyberdyne Systems T-X.
Earth is not heaven, and was not meant to be heaven.
The "free will" of mankind, and the "free reign" of nature (limited within certain laws) necessitates that God's Creation is not "perfect" (whatever we think that is). And yet at the same time, it is perfect.
Earth is not heaven, and was not meant to be heaven.
The "free will" of mankind, and the "free reign" of nature (limited within certain laws) necessitates that God's Creation is not "perfect" (whatever we think that is). And yet at the same time, it is perfect.
nicely put. a perfect system can still have imperfect pieces. of course, the perfection of the system is entirely spiritual, so it would indeed be an imperfect system in every way were there not a creator or a higher divine purpose.
not everyone that believes that God (or a god/creator/etc) rejects science, or even calls it 'theory'. some of us wholeheartedly accept science. but an acceptance of science does not mean a denial of God. nor does it mean that we couldn't have been created. it just means that we couldn't have been created in the way that the political creationists insist.
either way, that doesn't affect all of us, just those that hold to the creationist ideas.
Mystic, it seems you are in need of a dictionary, as you keep referring to nature as some kind of god or religious dogma. I'll help you out this one time.
Nature...
1. The material world and its phenomena.
2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
3. The world of living things and the outdoors: the beauties of nature.
4. A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality.
5. Theology Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace.
I wish we were monkey arms and legs to swing from the trees all the time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
