2
   

Intelligent Design is not creationism

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 12:24 pm
Doktor S wrote:
george, in response to my last post, wrote:
Quote:


Telling...

So again I ask, what makes the idea of multiple gods or a god that doesn't follow the agenda you give him any less meaningful than your particular conception? Even to the point of offhanded dismissal all possibilities you do not already believe! Pretentious arrogance at it's finest.
Frozen preconceptions are a bitch, ain't they?


You are correct, I failed to answer your earlier question.

I can't objectively exclude the possibility of multiple creators (or gods as you say), but the idea doesn't either make sense to me or give any satisfaction to my admitted appetite for meaning and understanding of the central question of existence. As a result I don't consider it.

I don't think I have offhandedly "dismissed" the other possibilities of this central question, as you suggest. On the contrary I have been arguing that a creator is a possibility too often offhandedly dismissed by those who instead willingly place their hope in physicists, yet unborn - and view this no less subjective choice as somehow superior. Moreover I have freely acknowledged the subjective leap that confronts all who approach this question seriously, myself included. One could argue at length over the question of just where the 'pretentious arrogance' is to be found in this debate.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 12:38 pm
Hi georgeob1,

Who precisely "willingly place their hope in physicists, yet unborn" to the exclusion of all other rational presuppositions? Even I would not go that far, and I would strongly argue that science has a massively better chance of providing useable answers going forward than religion, for eample.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 01:17 pm
"Useable" Chum is a bit loose.
To whom?
What for?
In what way?
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 01:27 pm
Last time I checked there were no bookings available for cross Canada astral projection nor transcontinental broomstick flights. I gather there are lots of bookings available at Christian ministries and other venues for religion/superstition that heal with the "power of the spirit", but I'll stick with my medical doctor.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 02:23 pm
Well Chum-it's one bet anybody is free to take.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 02:41 pm
Well, I'll fling a truism for fun if not for profit:
Freedom from rationality is inherent to the human condition.

And then I'll pose the question begged:
But is that freedom?

And then I'll requisition the classic:
Define your terms as per freedom!

And then I'll get humorously sophistic and aver that freedom can only be defined in absolute terms by either the sate of non- existence or the state of complete omnipotence.

And then I'll......
.
.
.
.
.

- Whistles a tuneless melody in the darkening hall, pushes hands firmly in pockets, rambles towards a stage exit -

Curtain.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 03:30 pm
Chum wrote-

Quote:
Freedom from rationality is inherent to the human condition.


I would agree in general but one can be rational at times.One gets better at it as one grows older. Spendius,in Salammbo is about as rational as I've ever seen.

Quote:
But is that freedom?


So that varies too.But are birds free from the chains of the skyways? "one hand waving free"

Quote:
Define your terms as per freedom!


"Been a long time since a strange woman slept in my bed,
See how sweet she sleeps,how free must be her dreams.
In another lifetime she must have owned the world or been faithfully wed
To some righteous king who wrote psalms beside moonlit streams."

Bob Dylan I and I.

How's that?

Ever see Dylan in '81 with that band do the full Tambourine Man.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 03:39 pm
Chumly wrote:
Hi georgeob1,

Who precisely "willingly place their hope in physicists, yet unborn" to the exclusion of all other rational presuppositions? Even I would not go that far, and I would strongly argue that science has a massively better chance of providing useable answers going forward than religion, for eample.


I'm not arguing that any particular or even any extant religion can or has provided the answer to the question of how we and the cosmos came in to existence. However I do suggest that physics can't do it either. and isn't likely to in any forseeable circumstance. Certainly science can and will likely continue to provide "useable" de4scriptive and predictive answers concerning the observqabvle processes of nature. Religion is no substitute for this. However a scientific explanation for the origin of the cosmos (as opposed to its evolution) is no closer today than it was a thousand years ago. The "big bang, inflation, and dark matter are not a hell of a lot more comprehenible than Genesis taken metaphorically -and physics necessarily starts with a singularity in one form or another. So, while I live I choose to assume the universe was the work of a creator.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 04:03 pm
Hi georgeob1,

With all due respect, I do not believe you (or any one else for that matter) is in any kind of rational position to claim "I do suggest that physics can't do it either. and isn't likely to in any forseeable circumstance."

Why?

Because quite clearly the circumstances you speak of are unforeseeable in the strict sense.

Why?

Unless or until one is willing to claim they have the ability to exponentially extrapolate present scientific understandings and powers to, oh say, 50,000 years hence, your claim as to science's limits (let alone what science might become) is of very questionable merit.

Remember also that we have just gone around in a big circle due to your unproven presumption that the question of origins has relevance and meaning.

Remember also that you have not answered my question as to your claim: Who precisely "willingly place their hope in physicists, yet unborn" to the exclusion of all other rational presuppositions?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 04:40 pm
farmerman wrote:
. Thats not a particularly "engineering" based conclusion. Id think that, youd be interested in defining the unknowns and then developing a "model" for the options, a model that allows investigation. The problem I have with religion is that, when confronted with the questions of deep "anything" (time space order disorder etc) , those afflicted with religious P'sOV, immediately default to "he(or it ) who shall not be named".

You could indulge your need for a "satisfactory option" by employing science and inquiry, couldnt you?


In an odd way it was indeed an "engineered conclusion. The science is incomplete and fundamental unknowns remain, but it seems (to me) to be the most likely (or least unlikely) conclusion based on the available evidence. Moreover, as a practical matter, in terms of living one's life in a comprehensible way, it seems to work for me and to have stood the test of time with many who have travelled this way before.

Just like a geologist & chemist to take a swipe at engineers in a theological & philosophical discussion.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 04:54 pm
Chumly wrote:
Hi georgeob1,

With all due respect, I do not believe you (or any one else for that matter) is in any kind of rational position to claim "I do suggest that physics can't do it either. and isn't likely to in any forseeable circumstance."

Why?

Because quite clearly the circumstances you speak of are unforeseeable in the strict sense.

Why?

Unless or until one is willing to claim they have the ability to exponentially extrapolate present scientific understandings and powers to, oh say, 50,000 years hence, your claim as to science's limits (let alone what science might become) is of very questionable merit.

Remember also that we have just gone around in a big circle due to your unproven presumption that the question of origins has relevance and meaning.

Remember also that you have not answered my question as to your claim: Who precisely "willingly place their hope in physicists, yet unborn" to the exclusion of all other rational presuppositions?


I accept your points about the strict forseeability of future developments in physics. However I see no likelihood that physics will ever find a breakthrough concerning the source of the Big Bang or, alternatively quantum multiverses, and/or a cycle of creation & aniahllation through black holes etc - or any of the other singularities on which the various models are based. An unexplained big bang or an infinite regression of cause and effect seem equally unsatisfying to me. (As an anscdote -I had a conversation about this with Glen Seaborg a couple of years before he died - his answer was that Physics is not ever likely to solve this problem, but that as a Physicist he hesitated to think in concrete terms about a guess. I rejected this answer, asking him what he really thought He said he didn't know - it is a mystery - and he wasn'y going to share his belief..)

Perhaps the argument does seem a bit circular, but I still find the choice to suspend judgement, or to exlicitly deny creation, for the duration of one's only life, on the expectation that physics will one day solve these riddles the more fantastic option. I also believe that the notion of suspending judgement amounts at best to the Scarlet O'Hara principle -- "('ll think about that tomorrow." The essential point though is, that at this intersection a subjective choice is inescapable and that all here have made one.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 05:26 pm
Not me George.

I never consider myself in these matters.

I can actually stand off although I will admit that if I was in serious pain I might not have the requisite resources.

But I'm not.In fact I'm pissed and very glad I don't live in Nepal but that's not subjective because I don't.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 05:28 pm
Man Created God With The Computer
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 08:45 pm
Chumly wrote:


Interesting points. I suspect you and I have different conceptions of mankind's intellectual progress over the last few millenia. I believe the many problems "solved" by science constitute a collection of relatively simple deductions and obsrervations, compared to even the elementary problems of human behavior (and physics too) that remain unsolved. Moreover we usually got to the simple truths we have learned by complex circuitous routes.

In grad school I developed a real affection for applied mathematics. I got into advanced Linear Algebra, Tensor Analysis, Generalized Harmonic Analysis, etc, believing I was discovering new worlds. I still recall the day when I discovered that a Finite Fourier Transform was merely an Hermitian matrix. The whole structure that has so fascinated me collapsed into two or three central ideas. Then along came chaos and fractals. accompanied by new evidence of nature's use of self similar forms and the potential for chaos (deterministic but unpredictable. and yet self-regulating systems - all imbedded in even the simplest non-linear equations, but long ignored. Sensitive dependence opened so many new doors - ranging from classical problems like turbulent viscous flow to even new understanding of the complexities of the genome -- the relative difference between the information in ours and that of worms is trivial compared to the whole - and yet the difference! Later, I suspect we will discover yet another simplicity hidden by our usually overly complex constructs.

I agree the relativistic question of what came "before" the big bang may have no meaning within the universe that resulted from it. That however is not the question. I do indeed look for causes, and acknowledge that they may not be strictly sequential in our notion of time. However the notion that the fact that our scientific models cannot accomodate the ultimate cause, somehow constitutes closure of the question, strikes me as an absurd conceit, more reflective of the sometimes meaningless complexities of our scientific models than of reality.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 10:59 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I suspect you and I have different conceptions of mankind's intellectual progress over the last few millenia.


I did not intend to impute intellectual progress (or lack thereof) over the last few millenia was in any way germane to my perspective that:

1) the potentials of future science are infinite and unknown
2) science is in it's most basic infancy at this point in time
3) judgment of the potential of science, and perhaps even more to the point, what science might become, is vastly premature

For the record: I'll be damned if I know how much intellectual progress over the last few millenia man has made, if we exempt all the external artifices such as libraries and other fancy constructs and look only at the average world man. If we include all the external artifices then I would be willing to say man collectively has made substantive intellectual progress, even if the average world man has not.

BTW that in essence is one of the beauties of science, as the body of scientific work can stand, even if average world man does not.

georgeob1 wrote:
I believe the many problems "solved" by science constitute a collection of relatively simple deductions and obsrervations, compared to even the elementary problems of human behavior (and physics too) that remain unsolved.


Sure, this goes to point number "2) science is in it's most basic infancy at this point in time"

georgeob1 wrote:
Moreover we usually got to the simple truths we have learned by complex circuitous routes.


Assuming you are correct, it does not matter to me if we get to simple truths by complex circuitous routes, the end justifies the means. For example I was putting a sub-floor in my basement and I went through a complex circuitous route that an experienced dude would not have to do; nor will I now if I built another sub-floor. It's called the learning process.

georgeob1 wrote:
In grad school I developed a real affection for applied mathematics. I got into advanced Linear Algebra, Tensor Analysis, Generalized Harmonic Analysis, etc, believing I was discovering new worlds. I still recall the day when I discovered that a Finite Fourier Transform was merely an Hermitian matrix. The whole structure that has so fascinated me collapsed into two or three central ideas. Then along came chaos and fractals. accompanied by new evidence of nature's use of self similar forms and the potential for chaos (deterministic but unpredictable. and yet self-regulating systems - all imbedded in even the simplest non-linear equations, but long ignored. Sensitive dependence opened so many new doors - ranging from classical problems like turbulent viscous flow to even new understanding of the complexities of the genome -- the relative difference between the information in ours and that of worms is trivial compared to the whole - and yet the difference! Later, I suspect we will discover yet another simplicity hidden by our usually overly complex constructs.


Yes it can be that more direct efficient means to do the same thing are developed, some call it progress, some call it the learning process, some don't care what they call it and prefer to walk the dog or have a snooze.

georgeob1 wrote:
I agree the relativistic question of what came "before" the big bang may have no meaning within the universe that resulted from it. That however is not the question. I do indeed look for causes, and acknowledge that they may not be strictly sequential in our notion of time. However the notion that the fact that our scientific models cannot accomodate the ultimate cause, somehow constitutes closure of the question, strikes me as an absurd conceit, more reflective of the sometimes meaningless complexities of our scientific models than of reality.


I am not sure where you get the view that if our present day science does not accomodate ultimate cause, it must mean the question is closed. I am not aware of any legitimate scientific discipline that would make a blanket claim of this type, and I certainly would not.

I said in order for the question of ultimate cause to have meaning, it's presuppositions must be addressed. Ultimate cause "presupposes a meaning which you have not shown to have demonstrable merit".
Two of them nasty little presuppositions that get in the way of ultimate cause are causality and linear time!
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 11:24 pm
I must admit I did not know anybody quite like GeorgeOB at Cal Tech, although most of them did have distinct problems in communication. As far as complex constructs go, that group of boxcar sentences incorporates a style of writing I've always regarded as pretentious and prosaic at the same time. It may not be intentionally misleading -- many who have faith cannot explain it other than that unerring fact that it's nearly impossible to have faith in another person. In the end, one way or another, they will betray your trust.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 11:27 pm
(BTW, I do have to commend the Cal Tech boys for being able to drink like there's no tomorrow, maybe proving that vokda is an ingredient for an internal message).
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 12:02 am
Like you, I prefer my brain salad crisp and to the point!
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 03:14 am
Quote:

I can't objectively exclude the possibility of multiple creators (or gods as you say), but the idea doesn't either make sense to me or give any satisfaction to my admitted appetite for meaning and understanding of the central question of existence. As a result I don't consider it.

Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps because the memes of christianity have been so deeply impressed apon your person that you cannot distinguish where one stops and the other begins?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 05:32 am
george, I get tears in my eyes when I hear someone extoll the virtues of "the applied". We are such an overlooked frontier of science and eng. There is such an academic caste system imposed between the "applied" disciplines and the theoretical. In the 70's , when chemistry took on a new role with "nano reactions and super molecularity", It took us applied people to find out what we can do with all these adsorbed buckyballs.

I must say, Ive had my "fling" with the theoretical, but she had left me cold and full of angst that results in a "whats the point?" attitude.
Im more like the old Bill Cosbyline about being asked "why is there air"?
and I would immediately say"to disperse particles"
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 01:37:50