95
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
Nova Flare Q
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 22 Nov, 2015 12:59 pm
Sitting back and thinking for a moment about the entire universe in general: Why does anything exist at all in the first place?
Why do we have the laws of physics?
Why do we have quantum mechanics and it's completely different set of rules?
Why are there any rules at all?
How did the big-bang come about if it came from something which, in turn, came from nothing?

Here is a wonderful theory that attempts to explain the underlying structure of the universe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

String theory is still just a theory, but it gives some insight into how complex the underlying foundations of our world actually is. Another thing you may wish to look into is the Banach Tarski Paradox, a mathematical oddity.

It is more logical to think that the realm that we dwell in is simply another layer to what God already is, and that God is the universe as a whole instead of some mystical, separate being. It isn't a far-fetched claim - how come the universe can randomly form brain matter that can calculate for itself, and yet the universe itself cannot calculate? How come people proclaim that the universe is infinitely expanding and infinitely complex in all of it's mathematical and metaphysical fields, and yet also proclaim that we are simply an accident?

So there is some food for thought. Nothing is as simple as you may think.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2015 01:23 pm
@Nova Flare Q,
why not start a thread?
0 Replies
 
anthony1312002
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 10:46 am
@wandeljw,
This is a subject over which the debate continues on. But there are some in the scientific community that, while not subscribing to a belief in God, have reversed their position when it comes to intelligent design. It has come about because of the advancements made in the study of the human genome as well as other objects found in nature. Some have even been willing to take another look at the Bible’s account of creation. For example, each creative period or day mentioned in the Bible is now understood to have been up to several million years in length. This is more inline with what science states regarding how long certain processes took during the formation of the earth.

What made it hard for them to consider this is due to the erroneous view many religions put forth that each creative day was 24 hrs in length despite the fact that texts themselves clearly show that each period was far far longer.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 10:48 am
Any of you evolution experts have a thumbnail explanation for the process by which some flying insects (butterfly for example) that have life cycles that include metamorphosis evolved? Been meaning to research that but lacked the time.

It seems like something beyond what natural selection could possibly explain.
hingehead
 
  3  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 06:01 pm
@Leadfoot,
I'm no expert, and I'd be interested in it too.

But there are parallels - reptilian eggs to mammalian live birth with monotremes and marsupials as stages between.

Quick google search chucked up this Scientific American article
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/insect-metamorphosis-evolution/

Currently reading - sorry it's no thumbnail.
hingehead
 
  3  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 06:07 pm
@hingehead,
This intrigues too. I wonder if metamorphosis is like an interrupted gestation.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_2ocgSdkueHs/RsmqGuCwHII/AAAAAAAAAgg/pR9XEF303w0/s400/haeckel-embryos.jpg

From http://www.science20.com/fish_feet/why_does_my_baby_have_a_tail
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 09:57 pm
@hingehead,
Good link, thanks.

The theory on the elimination of competition between young & old for food sources as a driver for metamorphosis evolving sounds like a stretch though. I'm being a little facetious but jeez, wouldn't there be a more straight forward way to change food source than changing from leaf eating worm to nectar sucking butterfly as you get older?
hingehead
 
  3  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 10:13 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
wouldn't there be a more straight forward way to change food source than changing from leaf eating worm to nectar sucking butterfly as you get older?


You'd think, but I find that mind set implies that there's intelligence driving evolution - and there isn't. To me it really is just about statistical advantages to DNA proliferation due to internal and external changes over time.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 10:29 pm
Denialism should be listed in the DSM-V.

neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 11:51 pm
@FBM,
Denial is a psychological defense mechanism. They are not, in themselves classifiable illnesses or personality types, but instead are underlying personality characteristics.

A good list with explanations may be found here.

Note that not all are dangerous to mental health.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 11:54 pm
@neologist,
Eh. That was an example of me engaging in rhetoric. Wink
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 12:32 am
@FBM,
Thought as much possibly. But wouldn't want the casual reader to be sidetracked.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 03:21 am
@FBM,
you really have no clue with regards to DSM & psychiatry! That's for sure!
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 06:15 am
Ah yes, any hint that you might think there is anything other than 'sacred evolution' and you must be mentally ill.

Got it.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 06:18 am
@Leadfoot,
Denial in the face of a ****-ton of evidence is a mental defect. Even if it's as mild as a personality problem. It's probably related to facticity disorder. Just a guess. Wink
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 06:20 am
@FBM,
One wonders why you would even waste your time with them.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 06:23 am
@Leadfoot,
It's interesting.

By the way, you seem pretty grumpy today. I thought we had been making progress on being civil to each other lately.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 06:31 am
@FBM,
I thought so too. But you start out today suggesting that I'm mentally ill and I'M grumpy?

No, Set's grumpy! But that's not new :-)
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 06:34 am
@Leadfoot,
There is no real "evidence" tht provides a good explanation re the development of complete metamorphoosis in insects. However, the concept of a metamorphism sequence is visible in the fossil record clear back to marine organisms of the Edicaran and the "Cambrian Explosion". SO the actual development of egg, free swimming polyp, and sessile adult, were observable over a 40 + million year fossil record.

First insects were seen to have incomplete metamorphosis. Theyd go through "instars" Again, though, did insects only show us their fossils of certain growth stages or do we even have any evidence of larval stages that were separate life styles as we see in many of todays ??

We know that theecdysis of nymphs of various Paleozoic arthropodas and crustaceans had occured in the early to mid Cmbrin (ith a "first appearance in one species of "rudist "coral may have actully occured in the late Ediacaran times. Some crustceans like early trilobites had examples of "incomplete metamorphosis" by showing severl instars in the same formational outcrop.

Insect metamorphosis did not really appear in the fossil record till the Devonian.
Several "hypotheses" of where complete and incomplete metamorphism rises from. Id say its a common ancestry thing transferred through early arthropods , annelids, coelenterates, and other families. These hypotheses, I must qpologize, are out of my pay grade and so I dont really keep up with "paleoendocrinology". The literature is full of some attempts t research but uing normal gene editing doesnt give up any secret information, it usually gives us some dead nymphs.

But, having said that, the "sudden appearance" of development stages can be followed (albeit fundamentally) through the fossil record. In order to track species development via metamorphism in the fossil record we need to be able to state definitively that e can link nymphs qnd adults. (It was easy in coleopterans nd lepidopterans because their nymphs are evolving in a fairly easily unerstood chain). Stuff like some species of insectq (like dragonflies), protochordates, graptolites etc are a "dogs breakfast" of fossils of which we hve no clue which one goes with which adult.

Im sure the Creationists/IDers are having a field day to say "See heres a group of organisms of which science has no clue"

We do, but most all our "clues" are still highly circumstantial.

Have fun with it. What you are doing though , is exactly what many of us hqve said ad nauseum. "When an IDer has an apparent roadblock in evidence he defaiults to "GOD DIDIT" followed by "MILLER TIME"
I admit to a paucity of data in this area, but no scientist, (to my knowledge), is defaulting to faith. They have ways of conducting qctual research. How about ID?

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 06:46 am
@farmerman,
I popped the top on my Miller long ago but not on the basis of apparent roadblocks.

But thanks for the sketch. Still looking up some of the new (to me) terms in there.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/08/2022 at 06:04:08