Intelligent Design is not creationism

Our cosmological theological philosophical intellectual ruminations are heading south fast (care to suggest the next stop?).

Complex and Hidden Brain in Gut Makes Bellyaches and Butterflies

0 Replies

Timber, Farmerman,

Timber, Thanks very much for the very interesting links. I'm still messing around with them. I was part of a group at Caltech, Stanford and Los Alamos that was engaged in a large scale effort to numerically simulate turbulent viscous flow. This also fed into a parallel effort by meteorologists to develop a numerical model of the atmosphere for weather prediction. Chaos theory was a spin off development from this effort which, combined with some new geometric concepts coming out of Cal Santa Criuz and other places formed the main ingredients for the modern theory. I was a relative grind: it was smarter guys than me who saw the new concepts. Apparently a related effort continued with Mr Wolfram and others. Interestingly, it was a meterorologist (Lorenz) who first noticed and articulated the sensitive dependence on initial conditions that kicked the whole thing off. Also noteworthy is that by 1972 the numerical model could deliver a five day forecast of reasonable accuracy on a fairly coarse grid. The orders of magnitude improvements in computational speed and capacity since then have increased the forecast period to only about ten days.

I am generally familiar with several multi-universe conceptions, ranging from parallel quantum realities to the bubble models referred to by Farmerman. Whether the singularity takes the form of an unexplainable big bang or an infinite regression of cause and effect, creation and destruction, or branches into parallel multiverses , the question remains: How did it originate? What brought it about? Some serious thinkers suggest that the question itself is improper or inherently unanswerable. This may be the case in some philosophic taxonomy which defines its terms accordingly. However, It doesn't satisfy my own understanding.

0 Replies

georgeon

Quote:

Interestingly, it was a meterorologist (Lorenz) who first noticed and articulated the sensitive dependence on initial conditions that kicked the whole thing off

Many would argue that Mitch Feigenbaum was there to open the door for Lorenz. Whatever the case, when you invoke chaos (the mother of physics wherein the applied rules the paths of the theoretical), you invoke the search for the root of cause, as oft quoted from Darcy Thompson who was the last of the oldtimers (or the first of the new) to spend time distinguishing between final v physical causation.(IMHO Darcy Thompson was the daddy of chaos) Youve opened the door with this and now we can enter as equals , each familiar enough with the applications of fractals in nature, as Mandelbrot called his book.

In DArwin the biological worlds may not fulfill a "Gods design" but it does fulfill a series of limited design shapes allowed by natural selection, where the final product is what selection operates on, not genes or embryos. So an adaptationist view of the shapes of organisms always considers the "final cause", not its physical cause. We see an adaptation and ask "what purpose does it serve?"
Thompson didnt have the math available to him to do homology "expansions" or a mandelbrot inspired "cladistics tree" so he took an arts n crafts approach to the homology of derived body structures and just drew how one could "morph" into another. He had te need for a system that could predict that homology connects all living things by structure. Hence , when we apply topology to morph a planet into a donut, Thompson originally gave us a jumping off place where we could understand that physical laws , acting in concert with selection together with environmental opportunity, can fully explain the relatively limited pallette of shapes that life can undertake.

I see that a similar 'duuhh" experience will eventually tie up a deeper understanding than we now have regarding cosmology. Im not so quick to default. Otherwise, it makes the process of doing science so, damn irrelevant, and thats something that

I cant deal with

0 Replies

I agree with FM's unwillingness to default. In that no one (apparently) can offer proof of a deity, it is more than a little foolish to beg all the practical questions for which people seek answers by stipulating prime causes in advance of knowing, and which very likely cannot ever be ultimately known. Waste of good brain power, too . . .

0 Replies

Georgiepoo...

Quote:

Interesting observation. And what do you suppose are the "memes" that have formed your views?

So, when you aren't outright dodging ignoring questions you answer them with other questions?

Now, are you capable of straight answers or what? Try your best!

Why is your monotheistic 'christianized' conception of 'god' any more meaningful than any other conception?

If, because you, on a subjective level, find this one of infinite possible conceptions 'meaningful' to the exclusion of all others, then that in and of itself would seem to evidence the memes of which I speak.

Or perhaps you would have come up with that particular flavor of monotheism all on your own had it not been impressed on your mind like so many chocolate chips into cookie batter.
But I somehow doubt it.

0 Replies

It's unsatisfying, isn't it?
Our inability to define the initial cause in the chain of cause and effect. Perhaps we simply do not understand the exact nature of causality.
Or space.
Or time.

Are we offended by the assertion that there may be an entity who does?
Perhaps the one who calls himself 'he who causes to become'?
Might that create an obligation for us?

I'm not advocating belief or disbelief by default, but rather a mind left open for discussion.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Perhaps we simply do not understand the exact nature of causality.
Or space.
Or time.

The definitive word is not "perhap"s it's "with certainty". Have you read my and other's more recent posts? Of coarse (!) mine are the most lucid by a substantive margin. Nevertheless lack of knowledge does not validate superstition.

0 Replies

Stupidity won't validate superstition either,

0 Replies

He he.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:
Perhaps we simply do not understand the exact nature of causality.
Or space.
Or time.
The definitive word is not "perhap"s it's "with certainty". Have you read my and other's more recent posts? Of coarse (!) mine are the most lucid by a substantive margin. Nevertheless lack of knowledge does not validate superstition.

Of course I understood. I used the word perhaps to include those not certain.

Perhaps it is because in the end, we are not certain in this arena. :wink:

0 Replies

Hey Neo,
would you agree that if you could find a religion inherently more benign than the one you adhere to, it would be sensible to switch?

benign:
Of a kind and gentle disposition.
Showing gentleness and mildness.
Tending to exert a beneficial influence; favorable: a policy with benign consequences for the economy.
Having little or no detrimental effect; harmless: a chemical additive that is environmentally benign.
Medicine. Of no danger to health; not recurrent or progressive; not malignant: a benign tumor.

0 Replies

neo

Quote:

Are we offended by the assertion that there may be an entity who does?
Perhaps the one who calls himself 'he who causes to become'?
Might that create an obligation for us?

We are not offended, least Im not. I just ask that the rules that you ask us to adopt in our "rules of evidence" also apply to your "assertions". If you dont, then you are merely engaging in "Tales from the Crypt", good stories but without substance
AT LEAST science starts out with some initial phenomena and follows up with a modicum of evidence. Religion starts with a conclusion then tries to boolsheet its way backwards to an origin.

booga booga

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Hey Neo,
would you agree that if you could find a religion inherently more benign than the one you adhere to, it would be sensible to switch?

benign:
Of a kind and gentle disposition.
Showing gentleness and mildness.
Tending to exert a beneficial influence; favorable: a policy with benign consequences for the economy.
Having little or no detrimental effect; harmless: a chemical additive that is environmentally benign.
Medicine. Of no danger to health; not recurrent or progressive; not malignant: a benign tumor.

Not sure I understand what is meant by 'benign consequences for the economy'; but yes, I agree.

Will you also agree?

0 Replies

I would interpret "benign consequences for the economy" as not asking for donations to promote advocacy of such asinine projects as getting ID taught as science in schools.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

neo
Quote:
Are we offended by the assertion that there may be an entity who does?
Perhaps the one who calls himself 'he who causes to become'?
Might that create an obligation for us?

We are not offended, least Im not. I just ask that the rules that you ask us to adopt in our "rules of evidence" also apply to your "assertions". If you dont, then you are merely engaging in "Tales from the Crypt", good stories but without substance
AT LEAST science starts out with some initial phenomena and follows up with a modicum of evidence. Religion starts with a conclusion then tries to boolsheet its way backwards to an origin.

booga booga

It's 'mooga booga'. :wink:

Well, you are right. But credulity is not limited to religionists. The folks we should be worried about are those who have a vested interest in the conclusion. It happens everywhere. Take for example, the 60 Minutes report of former CIA official Tyler Drumheller: A spy speaks out

(For those who haven't time for the link, Drumheller alleges the White House accepted only that 'intelligence' which bolstered their decision to go to war in Iraq.)

Current scientific knowledge, however well tested, is merely a collection of conclusions.

It follows then, that one's religious conclusions must also be subject to test.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

I would interpret "benign consequences for the economy" as not asking for donations to promote advocacy of such asinine projects as getting ID taught as science in schools.

Is that all? Well, shoot. Laughing

0 Replies

If one believe that all scientific conclusions are based on illusion that is not supported by fact, they're apply transferances preached by religion. Religion is guilty of playing the walnut shells and the pea game -- it's not concerned whether one perceives it as a magic trick, they are apparently just interested in getting one's money to forward their absurdities. The problem is that people I've encountered have faith in the religious leaders, not necessarily in Christ or God.

Of course, amassing funds to just fund getting Creationism or ID or both taught in schools is not the church's only agenda. Some of them are actually beneficial but the one that comes to mind is helping the poor. Secular organizations as well as the government also help the poor, but without proselytizing.

0 Replies

Quote:

Current scientific knowledge, however well tested, is merely a collection of conclusions.

The use of the adverberial adjective "merely" is disingenuous. Science proceeds from hypthesis to test and the accumulation and review of evidence, to state more refined hypostheses which are testable, falsifiable, and predictive. When prediction fails, the hypothesis is revised. When it succeeds, the hypothesis is better founded, and new avenues of testing are indicated. No such process applies to scriptural injunction, which is never subject to review, and which cannot admit of error. It is also not predictive, and when its tenets are questioned, or are pointed out as being inaccurate, we are told that the deity "moves in mysterious ways."

Quote:

It follows then, that one's religious conclusions must also be subject to test.

No, it does not follow. It ought to follow, but it does not. The only testing which goes on is circular, scripture is compared to other scripture, and is declared to have been successfully predictive, but the declaration depends upon the tortured exegesis of obscure passages. The base premise is reliant upon a supernatural being or condition, and so, is ultimately "untestable."

0 Replies

Sorry to have used the word 'merely' and forgetting to use the word 'ought'.

I stand by the level of scrutiny I have applied to my religious belief.

0 Replies

And i stand aside . . .

0 Replies

Intelligent Design is not creationism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know