Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Just because some scientists do not acknowledge the creator does not mean all their observations about creation are wrong.

So?

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
'Just because some scientists do not acknowledge the creator does not mean all their observations about creation are wrong.'

So?

So when you claim that their observations are wrong, (i.e. math, relativity, etc) I hate looking equally ignorant by association.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

So when you claim that their observations are wrong, (i.e. math, relativity, etc) I hate looking equally ignorant by association.

I don't care about that.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

If you talk about the old ID, then it is not science. But I had already discovered the real intelligence.

1 Reply

@MrIntelligentDesign,

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:

If you talk about the old ID, then it is not science. But I had already discovered the real intelligence.

Then it would behoove you to demonstrate it.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

SURE!

I will make it slowly since my experience in my attempts in peer-review told me that even the reviewers were not sharp enough to understand new discoveries. How about you?

I discovered many things in science and most of them are unsolved problems but in here, I will only limit ourselves on universal and real intelligence and new Intelligent Design <id> since I have work too and I am writing many books. I don't have a full time to reply to all of you that is why I ask you to read all my posts since they are all for you...

But I will help you to understand it. I hope that you could.

I am the Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author of the new Intelligent Design <id> and the discoverer of the real "intelligence".

Well, the old ID was based on "complexity" from Darwin's original idea of eyes as "complex", hence we have "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information" from the old ID but the new Intelligent Design <id> is using the real intelligence only that I've discovered.

Difference between the old intelligence to the new intelligence?

OK, the old intelligence talks about natural phenomenon only...not the actual intelligence. The old intelligence has 60+ researched definitions as published in arxiv.org but the new intelligence has only one definition and it covers all the probably 80+ definitions of old intelligence combined. The new definition of intelligence is also universal, which means you can use it to all X in the entire existence.

Thus, when you talk intelligence without relying/using my new discovery of the real intelligence, you are talking a natural phenomenon and not the actual intelligence, thus, you are surely wrong scientifically.

Thus, I am informing all you here that your science and understanding of reality are wrong since you have no idea of the real intelligence.

In applications, (1) how do we know if a biological cell is designed or not?

Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?

Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?

If we use the explanatory power from ToE (Theory of Evolution), we will have three answers to the three questions..but for the explanatory power from new Intelligent Design <id>, we will have only one answer to all questions since, as I had claimed and said, that real intelligence is universal...

We can even answer this question: How do you know if a mountain is designed or not?..same answer universally...

or particles or sub-particles or anything...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ADVERSARIAL REVIEW of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be fair to those who bought my science books, I will be sharing you the different content of my science books and in different approach so that all of you who are interested could be a part of this Adversarial Review of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries. I claimed that my new discoveries are universal, obvious and yet sooooooooooo profound and sooooooo straightforward. Thus, I can give you any demonstrations and experiment to show the real intelligence.

BACKGROUND
Before the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered the real intelligence and the universal boundary line (UBL) in the topic of origin and cause and effect, our naturalistic science had no UBL to differentiate a natural phenomenon (naturen) or natural process (naturen) to intelligently designed process or intelligently designed products (intellen). Thus, when all of the scientists were asked the question of the origin of the existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, the answer is always either

“GodDidIt”

Or

“NatureDidIt”.

But if the follow up question is something like this; “How do you know that it is ‘GodDidIt’ or ‘NatureDidIt’” the normal answer for “GodDidIt” is “our holy book said it”. The normal answer for “NatureDidIt” is always a question, “If nature did not do it, which?” assuming that if there is an Agent who had designed existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, a collective nature did it.

They both have answers but they have both no experiments to show that. In short, they have both assumptions and conclusions or pre-determined views. Thus, we have dilemma in science and in reality.

You can choose which camps you want.

NAILING THE BOUNDARY LINE
Here is how the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered and settled the most difficult topic in the topic of origin.

Let us assume that you are a clerk or secretary of a company and your desk is just outside the room of your manager. The manager had asked you to give him/her “one paper clip”. So, you bring one paper clip and give it to him/her. In our human’s way of dealing things, bringing one paper clip to him/her is not an act of intelligence. It is an act of a normal phenomenon or ordinary natural phenomenon. The new Intelligent Design <id> called it “naturen”. If we put that in a simple mathematical relation, we can write like this:

One problem (P) = one solution (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 1, then the ratio is 1.

One paper clip divided by one paper clip will always be one.

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio a SYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.

Now, let us assume that you bring two paper clips and a stapler to the same request of bringing one paper clip. It depends on the manager, but if you prepare two paper clips and a stapler to solve the future request, the new Intelligent Design <id> called that act as an intellen, for you are not only solving one problem but you are solving one problem with three solutions.

One problem (P) = three solutions (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 3, then the ratio is 3.

Two paper clips + one stapler divided by one paper clip will always be three.
(I am not thinking units here, OK?)

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio an ASYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.

OK, why it is naturen? If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1.

Let us make more examples in reality:
When you are hungry (problem) for 200 grams of spaghetti and you eat 200 grams of spaghetti (solution), that is also naturen. Or drink 100 ml of soda because you are thirsty of 100 soda, that is also a naturen. My discoveries had been telling and pointing us that there are really a natural process, natural phenomenon and natural event.

OK, why it is intellen? Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things. FAILURE or less than 1 is not intellen, obviously.

For example:
1. Paper clip. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are assuring that the work of your manager by using paper clip is successful. Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen.
2. Hungry and Eat. When you eat spaghetti (X) with higher nutrients (for example) that is already considered intellen since you are assuring that your health will continue. This is “life” or “survive” for the new Intelligent Design <id>.
3. Thirsty and Drink: When you drink 100 ml soda with additional nutrients, then, you are an intellen since you are solving the problem of drinking 100 soda only with more additional healthy drink.

In the new Intelligent Design <id>, the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method.

Now, from the above explanations, we can derive the universal definition of intelligence:

Do you wanna guess?

Let me share it here.

Intelligence is the principle of reinforcing an X to survive, to exist and to succeed in a certain degree of importance, and it always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon.

If we use the paper clip, we can explain it from the above definition.

If you bring two or more paper clips, you are reinforcing or supporting your solution to really give your manager a paper clip. What if you give him/her a broken paper clip and you did not have reserve? He or she will tell you that you are “STUPID!” And stupidity is not intellen. So, two are better than one in intellen. And since your work and your manager is important, you keep thinking many solutions to single situation/problem. And since two or more clips are greater than 1, then, you are just doing the asymmetrical phenomenon…a problem-solution-solution principle.

THIS IS the Holy Grail of my new discovery. After you understand this, please, contact the Nobel Prize committee and given them my name and tell them my new discovery.

If we apply that to the origin and cause and effect in Physics, Biology, Philosophy, you will surely blow your intellectual mind and say, “REALLY! That is so simple and yet profound!

Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…

I will be sharing more…
___
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of Intelligent Design <id>. So, Biological Interrelation, BiTs is unproved and un-provable. We believe it only because the only alternative is evolution, and that is unthinkable.

1 Reply

@MrIntelligentDesign,

Oh, god, we clearly hav another crank on our hands here. No, mr.id, no Nobel for you.

0 Replies

Quahog, Herald, martinies, now mister.id., we must b cursed.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

LOL!!! You had come to the real science! PREPARE for a scientific battle and don't surrender! LOL!

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Maybe we should take it as a compliment that we get the screwiest of the screwballs.

0 Replies

Popping corn.
Popping brewski.
Awaiting the show.

1 Reply

MrID gives credence to the theory that any legitimate evidence of a creator must be neutralized by having it trumpeted by someone totally unbelievable.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Do you intend to imply that you have such legitimate evidence in the first place?

1 Reply

@FBM,

No plausible explanation for things like the Big Bang and abiogenesis is that legitimate evidence until such time as that explanation is found.

2 Replies

@neologist,

I am always winning in every show. Thus, hold on and see how I smash erroneous science especially from ToE...

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

So you're going with the ol' god-of-the-gaps argument. You know that's been debunked for years now, right?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

There are many "creators" or small "Intelligent Agent" life IAs who made PC...but are you asking the big IA?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

But the real intelligence predicts the origin of Big Bang and life...

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

@Leadfoot,
So you're going with the ol' god-of-the-gaps argument. You know that's been debunked for years now, right?

Changing the subject? The problem of abiogenesis and the Big Bang is totally unrelated to 'the gaps' thing. Show me the evidence for your so called 'debunking' if you have it.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
@Leadfoot,
So you're going with the ol' god-of-the-gaps argument. You know that's been debunked for years now, right?
Changing the subject? The problem of abiogenesis and the Big Bang is totally unrelated to 'the gaps' thing. Show me the evidence for your so called 'debunking' if you have it.

Not changing anything. I'm very much on topic and on target: http://www.theopedia.com/god-of-the-gaps

Quote:

God of the Gaps
God of the Gaps arguments are a discredited and outmoded approach to apologetics, in which a gap in scientific knowledge is used as evidence for the existence of God.

Before the scientific revolution of the last four centuries, such arguments were commonplace and widely accepted, presumably because the "gaps" were large and showing no signs of shrinking. A lightning bolt crashes down, the peasants working in the field cross themselves and say "well, we don't understand that, so it must be God."

Problems with God of the Gaps
From a philosophical point of view, the inherent problem with a God of the Gaps apologetic is that it relegates God to only a portion of creation — the portion that we don't understand yet. It places the apologist at a disadvantage by ignoring how the underlying patterns in the things we understand speak to the work of the Creator God. It also denies, in effect, the Christian view of science, which is that science is "thinking God's thoughts after him"; it does this by suggesting that we can only see God in the areas of nature which we do not understand, rather than seeing him most clearly in those which we do understand.

From a pragmatic point of view, the main problem with a God of the Gaps apologetic is that the gaps are getting smaller with every passing year. No one felt this more keenly than Isaac Newton, a religious man (in the end a Deist) who closed more gaps than any other scientist. As recorded in the General Scholium^[1]^, Newton struggled to find a gap big enough for God. He eventually settled on gravity's action at a distance, unwilling to believe that a simple force could act across vast empty spaces and penetrate to matter in the center of the planets. That gap, of course, has long since disappeared from classical and relativistic physics.

Origin of the term
The earliest use of the term "God of the Gaps" was probably by Henry Drummond, a Scottish evangelist and close associate of D.L. Moody, who was renowned for his endeavours to harmonize emerging scientific theories with the gospel. Writing in 1894, Drummond was critical of those who focused on what science did not yet know:

There are reverent minds who ceaselessly scan the fields of Nature and the books of Science in search of gaps — gaps which they will fill up with God. As if God lived in the gaps? What view of Nature or of Truth is theirs whose interest in Science is not in what it can explain but in what it cannot, whose quest is ignorance not knowledge, whose daily dread is that the cloud may lift, and who, as darkness melts from this field or from that, begin to tremble for the place of His abode? What needs altering in such finely jealous souls is at once their view of Nature and of God. Nature is God's writing, and can only tell the truth; God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.^[2]^
Bonhoeffer, who may have read Drummond's book, used a similar term in a letter that he wrote in 1944:

...how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.^[3]^

God of the Gaps in theology and apologetics
Theologians and religious scientists have used God of the Gaps arguments at least since the thirteenth century, revising them in response to developments in science.

Thomas Aquinas argued that because there is order and predictability in inanimate objects, which clearly cannot create order for themselves, there must be an intelligent being ordering them:

We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. ^[4]^
Isaac Newton, a deist, developed equations that explained much of the order in inanimate objects, which challenged Aquinas's God of the Gaps arguments. In response, Newton turned to the variety that he saw in creation, as evidence for a creator:

We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. ^[5]^
William Paley, writing more than a century after Newton, argued that the complexity and obvious design of God's creation, and in particular of living things, was irrefutable evidence for God's existence:

In crossing a heath, suppose I ... found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place;... This mechanism being observed... the inference, we think, is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker....who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. ^ [6]^
Not many years after Paley, Darwin offered an explanation that undermined Paley's "argument from design." Many of those who had based their faith on Paley's arguments found their faith severely challenged. It was in this context that Drummond wrote "The Ascent of Man" as quoted above.

God of the Gaps in secular discourse
One frustration for Christian apologists is the tendency for secular commentators, even well-respected ones, to assume that Christian theology is based on God of the Gaps arguments. A typical non-believing syllogism might proceed as follows:

"I note that Christians see God's hand in the wonders of creation"
"I can explain all observables without resorting to God-talk"
"therefore Christians are wrong to believe in God"
The logical cum hoc ergo propter hoc error, of course, is to think that Christians have faith because they see God in creation. In general the reverse is the case: Christians see God in creation because they have faith — the veil has been lifted from their eyes and they can see God's hand in everything (2 Cor 4:3-4).

Believing that faith is based on a God of the Gaps, sceptics try to undermine faith by stitching up the gaps.

Contemporary example
Stephen Hawking provides an example of this in his 1988 best seller A Brief History of Time^[7]^. In Chapter 8 "The Origin and Fate of the Universe" he sets up a God of the Gaps strawman argument:

"In the hot big bang model ... the initial state of the universe would have to have had exactly the same temperature everywhere in order to account for the fact that the microwave background has the same temperature in every direction we look."
"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."
Hawking then introduces various Inflationary models of the universe, and a "no-boundary" proposal that requires no singularity at the big bang. With that cosmological gap thus closed, he concludes:

"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place then, for a creator?"
Notes
? Isaac Newton Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica 1687
? Henry Drummond The Ascent of Man, New York: James Pott & Co. Publishers, 1894, p. 333
? Dietrich Bonhoeffer Letters and Papers from Prison edited by Eberhard Bethge, translated by Reginald H. Fuller, Touchstone, ISBN 0684838273, 1997
? Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Q. 2, Art. 3, 1270
? Newton, Principia, General Scholium, 1687
? William Paley, "Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity", 1802
? Stephen Hawking A Brief History of Time, New York: Bantam, 1988

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know