# Is life so complex that it requires a designer?



## Makalakumu (Oct 3, 2005)

The "Intelligent Design" debate is heating up around the country and especially in Dover, Pennsylvania.  The fundamental question in this debate, in my opinion, is, "IS life so complex that it requires a designer?"

Please vote in the above poll and tell us why you believe this or why don't you believe this.


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 3, 2005)

I personally voted no, for I do not believe life is complicated. Now if it was said are people complicated to need a designer my answer would be yes people look for everything from people they believe have more insight than them.
Terry


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 3, 2005)

Life is so complicatd, and biochemical pathways so incredibly interdependant and intricate, it seems unlikely that random chance would develop such a clever and redundant system. Life is quite amazing 

MrH


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 3, 2005)

Life didn't start out complex.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 3, 2005)

terryl965 said:
			
		

> I personally voted no, for I do not believe life is complicated. Now if it was said are people complicated to need a designer my answer would be yes people look for everything from people they believe have more insight than them.
> 
> Terry


LOL good timing. Why is life not complicated? What makes it so simple?

MrH


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 3, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> LOL good timing. Why is life not complicated? What makes it so simple?
> 
> MrH


Well first Why is life not complicate? well in my life I keep it simple I work hard and train hard, I keep my three wonderful son out of trouble by providing them with respect, dignity and honor in what they do. When I get ask a question I answer to what I believe and not what they would like to hear honesty is always best even if you hurt there feelings in the beginning and I personally keep people from getting under my skin sort to speak of. 
For the second part we keep are life simple we do not care about keeping up with the jones, my life and my family life is just treat people fair and don't worry about what they do, they cannot effect you unless you let them, sort of roll of the shoulders.
Terry


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 3, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Life didn't start out complex.


There is alot of debate these days on what minimal set of genes is required for "life". To clarify the previous post, I'm not talking about complex life forms. If you want to keep it simple, lets stick with single cell organisms. Stay away from viruses or other cellular parasites, since they require some form of life to feed off of.

MrH


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 3, 2005)

Good thread. I dont know that anyone will ever agree or come to a conclusion on this question though. What some see as complicated, some may not. There are also differing levels of understanding of "life", but I think its a good question. I look forward to the coming discussion.

7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 3, 2005)

Genesis 1:21-22

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.​Seems like the 'Intelligent Designer' didn't design very intelligently if he a) forgot to design the female of the species (didn't seem to have the problem with the other animals) or b) couldn't design the female from scratch (as he did with all othe creatures).

Okay ... that's a cheap shot at religion. But intelligent design is nothing but creationism, wearing lipstick.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 3, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The "Intelligent Design" debate is heating up around the country and especially in Dover, Pennsylvania. The fundamental question in this debate, in my opinion, is, "IS life so complex that it requires a designer?"
> 
> Please vote in the above poll and tell us why you believe this or why don't you believe this.


I voted no, because while life may be too complex for randomness, it doesn't necessarily follow that some pre-existing consciousness designed it.  

Furthermore, the usual religious argument is something like "It would take some big number to 1 chance for a single protein to spontaneously form."  This is an impressive point, to be sure, but when we're talking about the beginning of life and all creation, is it really that unfathomable that over an infinite amount of time, that chance could have occurred?


----------



## OUMoose (Oct 3, 2005)

I voted "don't know" because no one really knows at all.  No one.  Perhaps there was/is one all-powerful creator who sculpted us out of the primordial clay of the earth.  Perhaps it really was one lucky lightning bolt that hit just right in that prehistoric goo and caused the first amino acid chains to start coming together. Perhaps the first humans were put here in the creation of a penal colony for intergalactic criminals.  Perhaps you're actually dreaming all of this, and you're actually a single-cel organism from some other dimention of which we currently have no concept.

The point is you can't answer yes or no to any of those questions, because there is no proof.  Until God, Allah, or whoever comes down, or we develop a machine that can move through time, we're NEVER going to know.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 3, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> is it really that unfathomable that over an infinite amount of time, that chance could have occurred?


 Now your talking about infinite time....thats a different argument. The second Law of Thermodynamics would negate that arguemnt. Its called entropy.

 7sm


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Oct 3, 2005)

I said 'Maybe Yes' because the jury is still out for me. Our system is so complex and exists in such a narrow range that Intelligent Design seems likely and possible. On the other hand, I don't find most 'Intelligences' very believable. I tend to answer such questions simply, 'God created evolution'. Then, I walk away whistling.

My personal belief is Zen-based, really. We cannot know the motivation or the thoughts of Dao/God; but, we can observe it's nature and move from there. The whys and wherefors I will happily leave to the more dissatisfied of the scholars.

egg


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 3, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Now your talking about infinite time....thats a different argument. The second Law of Thermodynamics would negate that arguemnt. Its called entropy.


Please explain. How does entropy negate infinite time? 

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is often used as an argument against evolution on a planetary scale. But, it only works in that argument if the system is closed. The earth (the only planet on which we are certain life exists) is not a closed system.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 3, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Now your talking about infinite time....thats a different argument. The second Law of Thermodynamics would negate that arguemnt. Its called entropy.
> 
> 7sm


2nd law has often been misused. Take two blocks, stick them on top of each other. you have just violated your perception of the 2nd law.

2nd law refers to a -closed- system. You can argue if the earth is a closed system, but most would agree thats its not (sun, comets, background radiation, ect). You take energy and stick it into your closed system, ie your two blocks. In order to gain order, you have to use energy or order in some other place, and its never perfectly efficient.

However, "infinite time" is perhaps a poor choice of words.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 3, 2005)

There is very compelling evidence that supports the postulation that life may have existed on Mars.  This "fact" has staggering potential in this debate.


----------



## MisterMike (Oct 3, 2005)

I voted yes. If it were so simple, wouldn't there be life on every planet? I mean, all it would have to do is evolve...

I really have to hand it to those so stuck on science. The need for proof/lack of faith mentality. Oh how it must feel to go through life, needing to have that firm grip on "reality," unable to just sit back in wonder or amazement... And then to have the audacity to criticize followers of other faiths... I'm getting sick.

I wish I could have all the answers written down and proven in complex mathematical equations like they do. Oh the Joy! With my little black book, I could solve all the world's problems...Aren't we there yet??

It's evident right down to some of the martial styles they study. This foot here, that one there. This will happen if you do that. So controlling. No room for exploration. Total denial of the human spirit and that which they cannot control. It makes them feel safe, no matter what the situation. Too afraid to step into the unknown. Too much ego to lose. Too far up the black belt chain. Unwilling to step into the unknown, take risks, or let go of the hand that leads them. Like a child.

You call yourselves martial artists... Right. If that's the case we're at an all time low.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 3, 2005)

Just a curious thought but adding energy (your effort) to your blocks doesn't produce order (stackng) unless the energy is guided toward a goal (your will/inteligence).  Just adding energy is going to either heat the blcoks or move the blocks, depending on the form of he energy, but you won't get any ordering *just* by adding energy, unless you get lucky that the energy is in form of motion and the motion happens to lead to an arrangement that means something


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 3, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I voted yes. If it were so simple, wouldn't there be life on every planet? I mean, all it would have to do is evolve...
> 
> I really have to hand it to those so stuck on science. The need for proof/lack of faith mentality. Oh how it must feel to go through life, needing to have that firm grip on "reality," unable to just sit back in wonder or amazement... And then to have the audacity to criticize followers of other faiths... I'm getting sick.
> 
> ...


Wow .. what a rant. 

'Too afraid to step into the unknown'. Science? 

MisterMike, you can't believe that can you? Science is about examining the unknown; to realize we know so very little about, well, everything. 

As Mister Data once said, the words 'I don't know' are the beginning of wisdom. 


upnorthkyoso ... I agree there is the beginning of evidence that life either exists, or at one time did exist on Mars. But, as of this time, the fact remains, I believe unproven. We do have proof of liquid water. And Everywhere else we encounter liquid water, we have found life. It is an exciting time for science.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 3, 2005)

Ok, you know those little games with the tiny balls and the holes you got to get them into?  Move it around randomly long enough and eventually they will all fall into place.  Why?  Well, once one gets to a more stable place it stays there.

 Basically that is evolution, random changes occur, the good ones stay, the bad ones keep changing till they land somewhere nice that suits the environment better.

 The force is random, but the changes are not.

 Same as rivers, all the water flows over everything, the best path will get more water, which will cut it deeper and make it a even better path, which cuts it even deeper until eventually all the water fits in the one path.

 Random in a sense, but the reason the changes occur and the river gets formed is not random.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 3, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I really have to hand it to those so stuck on science. The need for proof/lack of faith mentality


I tend to think a lot of science IS taken on faith and disguised as fact. 

"The Sun is a Mixture of Hydrogen and Helium" Really? Weve been there? Tested the mix? Its not possible its some completely different elements that behave in a similar manner? No... "We know its Hydrogen and Helium, because blah blah blah..."

My opinion is that A lot of it is scientific _guesswork_ BASED on known fact... but presented as fact.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 3, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> 'Too afraid to step into the unknown'. Science?


If I understand his intent correctly, I don't think this is the point. There are alot of people who are afraid to really enjoy life for what it is. Take the wonder of a child riding a roller coaster. Its a pleasure for them (asuming the like it!), and they don't spend hours working on the physics, trying to understand the underlying concepts. Sometimes in life you need to simply enjoy. There is time for fine details, but sometimes you just need to relax, sit back, and enjoy life... step out of your lab, go do something entertaining, enjoy things. Science/work will be there when you are done. Its not going anywhere. Don't be so rigid.

Get your intent correct Mike?

MrH


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 3, 2005)

_There is very compelling evidence that supports the postulation that life may have existed on Mars. This "fact" has staggering potential in this debate._

 Not really, it just pushes the same question(s) to a different place (ignoring religious beliefs that life had to originate on Earth)


----------



## OUMoose (Oct 3, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I voted yes. If it were so simple, wouldn't there be life on every planet? I mean, all it would have to do is evolve...
> 
> I really have to hand it to those so stuck on science. The need for proof/lack of faith mentality. Oh how it must feel to go through life, needing to have that firm grip on "reality," unable to just sit back in wonder or amazement... And then to have the audacity to criticize followers of other faiths... I'm getting sick.
> 
> ...


I don't quite understand the hostility here.  Are you afraid to look outside your own little walled off utopia?  The world is based on fact.  Facts require extensive proof.  How do we get to said proof?  We discuss it, and possibly find new ideas that had not been conceived previously.  

So I ask, who is more like a child?  Someone striving to learn all they can about the world around them, or someone closing themselves off to other's ideas with the proverbial foot-stomping tantrum?


----------



## MisterMike (Oct 3, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> If I understand his intent correctly, I don't think this is the point. There are alot of people who are afraid to really enjoy life for what it is. Take the wonder of a child riding a roller coaster. Its a pleasure for them (asuming the like it!), and they don't spend hours working on the physics, trying to understand the underlying concepts. Sometimes in life you need to simply enjoy. There is time for fine details, but sometimes you just need to relax, sit back, and enjoy life... step out of your lab, go do something entertaining, enjoy things. Science/work will be there when you are done. Its not going anywhere. Don't be so rigid.
> 
> Get your intent correct Mike?
> 
> MrH


Eh, yea. I forgot what I was gettin at half way through myself... 

I'm sure science can be inspired from faith. People digging in deeper into the creator's design, wanting to know more. That said, let's go clone something...


----------



## MisterMike (Oct 3, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> I don't quite understand the hostility here. Are you afraid to look outside your own little walled off utopia? The world is based on fact. Facts require extensive proof. How do we get to said proof? We discuss it, and possibly find new ideas that had not been conceived previously.
> 
> So I ask, who is more like a child? Someone striving to learn all they can about the world around them, or someone closing themselves off to other's ideas with the proverbial foot-stomping tantrum?


A^2 + B^2 = C^2


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 3, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Ok, you know those little games with the tiny balls and the holes you got to get them into? Move it around randomly long enough and eventually they will all fall into place. Why? Well, once one gets to a more stable place it stays there.
> 
> Basically that is evolution, random changes occur, the good ones stay, the bad ones keep changing till they land somewhere nice that suits the environment better.
> 
> ...


Not quite correct. Energetically, a biologically relevant conformation of a protein (or other biochemical entity) is not necessarily in its minimum energy. Things can get captured in local minima or in a global minima, taking energy to get them out. So, the "ball rolling into a hole" is a bit inaccurate. Your "best path" analogy is a bit off track on this. Depends on what you mean by "best" here. Energetically? no. Biologically? perhaps. You don't simply seek a minima (like a river would). Biologically you need to go upstream sometimes.

The random occurences in evolution, with the bad dying out is more accurate.

MrH


----------



## OUMoose (Oct 3, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> A^2 + B^2 = C^2


Please explain how your response of the Pythagorean Theorem is relevant here?


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 3, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> 2nd law has often been misused. Take two blocks, stick them on top of each other. you have just violated your perception of the 2nd law.


 Pretty arrogant of you to assume you know my perception of anything, let alone my perception of the 2nd law. 

 What was trying to say is that infinite time does not negate said arguments. Take the 2nd law, regardless of time, infinite or not, it is still valid. I wasn't disputing either side of this argument with the 2nd law, I was showing an example (entropy) that is immune, if you will, to the infinite time argument. 

  7sm


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 3, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I voted yes. If it were so simple, wouldn't there be life on every planet? I mean, all it would have to do is evolve...


 Considering he have very few planets to look at in relation to how many there are, that is a rather strange argument...

 If I look at a apple, a steak, a cracker, a loaf of bread, A bag f potato chips a chocolate bar and a piece of cheese.  I try to turn them all into juice and conclude that apples are the only object in the universe that can produce juice, because if others could do it, they would.

 There may be millions of planets in the Universe with conditions that are suitable for life to develop, and billions that it can't.


----------



## MisterMike (Oct 3, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> Please explain how your response of the Pythagorean Theorem is relevant here?


First explain how you are relevent here.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Oct 3, 2005)

Be nice, guys.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 3, 2005)

I remember hearing once that:

 "Astronmer's think life is probably out there because there are so many stars out there.  Biologists think life is probably not out there because life is so complex"

 Don't know where I heard it but it was interesting in terms of different perspectives.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 3, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Random in a sense, but the reason the changes occur and the river gets formed is not random.


 I'm confused, are you arguing for or against "intellegent design"?

 7sm


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 3, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'm confused, are you arguing for or against "intellegent design"?
> 
> 7sm


 Against, but it's not random, evolution is not "it happened by chance"


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 3, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Pretty arrogant of you to assume you know my perception of anything, let alone my perception of the 2nd law.
> 
> What was trying to say is that infinite time does not negate said arguments. Take the 2nd law, regardless of time, infinite or not, it is still valid. I wasn't disputing either side of this argument with the 2nd law, I was showing an example (entropy) that is immune, if you will, to the infinite time argument.
> 
> 7sm


_



			is it really that unfathomable that over an infinite amount of time, that chance could have occurred?
		
Click to expand...

_



> Now your talking about infinite time....thats a different argument. The *second Law of Thermodynamics would negate that arguemnt*. Its called entropy.


Your arguement was that entropy would negate the chance of life randomly happening. The 2nd law is always valid. Thats why its a law. However, the terminology of the law deals specifically with closed systems.

With regard to infinite time, the 2nd law would dictate that life would not exist _at the end point_ when the universe is reaching an enegetic equilibrium. Eventually, all things should become disordered. However, what the 2nd law would _not_ dictate is the path along the way. Things do reach towards disorder, but local areas of increased order in open systems will occur. The 2nd law was not intended to be used that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

Check out some of the external links at the bottom.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 3, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Against, but it's not random, evolution is not "it happened by chance"


 I gotcha. I'm deffinitely a person who believes in evolution, maybe not to the extent that some do, but it deffinitely exists. However, without randomness, there must be purpose. Purpose hints at intellegence. Intellegence hints at design. What explains the change in urgency to mutate? All species are mutable, but what caused things to mutate? Why change from the way things were for millions of years (or infinite time)?



			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> Your arguement was that entropy would negate the chance of life randomly happening. The 2nd law is always valid. Thats why its a law. However, the terminology of the law deals specifically with closed systems.
> 
> With regard to infinite time, the 2nd law would dictate that life would not exist _at the end point_ when the universe is reaching an enegetic equilibrium. Eventually, all things should become disordered. However, what the 2nd law would _not_ dictate is the path along the way. Things do reach towards disorder, but local areas of increased order in open systems will occur. The 2nd law was not intended to be used that way.
> 
> ...


   Did you actually read my posts? :idunno: 
    Your now telling me what my arguemnt was? 
 OK ok ok, your a smart mamajama and everyone applauds you and is a taken back by your understanding of thermodynamics....now can we get back to the topic at hand?
 You got so caught up in explaining to me, a poor uneducated waif, the 2nd law of thermodynamics that you missed my point. I wasn't using it to argue either side of this debate, but rather to show that life would not increase in its "order" but decrease. Said argument would have to say that before "evolution" "creation" or "life" things were in higher order than now....I dont agree. I said nothing about the path in which it would travel. My argument was about infinite time, not randomness "life happening".

    7sm


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Oct 3, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> What explains the change in urgency to mutate? All species are mutable, but what caused things to mutate? Why change from the way things were for millions of years (or infinite time)?


I say that most mutation occurs as a result of environmental changes; but, such changes occur slowly, don't you think?  A sudden, cataclysmic change in environment is not something that mutation could speedily accomodate; though, a small number of a given species may survive.

egg


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 3, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I gotcha. I'm deffinitely a person who believes in evolution, maybe not to the extent that some do, but it deffinitely exists. However, without randomness, there must be purpose. Purpose hints at intellegence. Intellegence hints at design. What explains the change in urgency to mutate? All species are mutable, but what caused things to mutate? Why change from the way things were for millions of years (or infinite time)?


 Purpose is natural selection, doesn't need a designer.

 Within any species there is a good deal of natural variation.  Looking at people, we got different heights, widths, skin color, hair color, IQ, physical ability, etc.

 Those who's natural variation gives them an advantage survive better, mate with others who are at a natural advantage and produce offspring which got started based on genes that have an advantage.

 Those who's natural variation puts them at a disadvantage don't survive as well, and there gene lines are eventually removed as they die out.

 Mutation will be excellerated by a change in environment, which will make the variations more important.  Or rather specific variations more important.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 3, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Now your talking about infinite time....thats a different argument. The second Law of Thermodynamics would negate that arguemnt. Its called entropy.


Eh, I don't buy this. If you have infinite time, and just need to get lucky once, the fact that order decays _on average_ doesn't change that fact.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 3, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> I remember hearing once that:
> 
> "Astronmer's think life is probably out there because there are so many stars out there. Biologists think life is probably not out there because life is so complex"
> 
> Don't know where I heard it but it was interesting in terms of different perspectives.


I do like that! It has some truth to it. Astronomers see the number of options available in terms of potentially habitable worlds, whereas biologists see all that must go right to get a planet that supports life, followed by life itself!

My thought is that there is life out there. Under some theories, many of the basic materials for life were brought here by comets and the like anyway!


----------



## arnisador (Oct 3, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I gotcha. I'm deffinitely a person who believes in evolution, maybe not to the extent that some do, but it deffinitely exists. However, without randomness, there must be purpose. Purpose hints at intellegence. Intellegence hints at design.


This is the argument that rivers are intelligent because they flow purposefully to the sea.

You're being far too anthropomorphic. Evolution doesn't necessarily create "better" creatures; look at the history of creatures leaving, and returning to, the sea. Mightn't dolphins be better off if they couldn't drown? To say that evolution is purposeful as though it pushes forward misses the point that evolution represents change to adapt--that isn't necessarily better or more advanced, just different. Bacteria are still here, because that appraoch is successful.




> Did you actually read my posts? :idunno:
> Your now telling me what my arguemnt was?


It's your responsibility to make your arguments clear--not others' responsibility to find sense in them.

I think you're failing to make your points clear. You might wish to either invest more time in your posts or, if that isn't worthwhile to you, sit this one out. If the other person cannot tell you what your argument was...it may well be your fault.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 3, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Eh, I don't buy this. If you have infinite time, and just need to get lucky once, the fact that order decays _on average_ doesn't change that fact


Well said.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> I do like that! It has some truth to it. Astronomers see the number of options available in terms of potentially habitable worlds, whereas biologists see all that must go right to get a planet that supports life, followed by life itself!
> 
> My thought is that there is life out there. Under some theories, many of the basic materials for life were brought here by comets and the like anyway!


I find the discussion of life on other planets quite interesting. It would be quite interesting if life is completely different than what we are used to. Even on earth, we have quite a variety of organisms. Extremophiles in undersea volcanoes, living in ice in the artic regions, the Dead Sea, its quite interesting. Who knows what form life might take?

*goes to get his xenobiologist degree and watch old Star Trek episodes*

hehe

MrH


----------



## arnisador (Oct 3, 2005)

My opinion...speaking of life being "complicated" is meaningless without a metric. Is DNA complicated? What it makes is, but DNA itself is four bases repeated in various patterns. Is that complicated? Is the cratered surface of the moon complicated? Is the rain cycle complicated? How much more complicated is a kidney than a watch?

Without a metric, it's meaningless to try to discuss complicatedness in a scientific way. It's a fuzzy concept.

Eveolution seems an adequate explanation to me. It's the only scientific theory we have at the moment, so while--like others before it--it could be wrong, there are currently no competitors to it.


----------



## OUMoose (Oct 3, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> First explain how you are relevent here.


Are you referring to the self?  If so, I am relevant as I am a living breathing human being.  The discussion started on the origins of my kind, and their evolution over time.  I'm guessing you're a human of some degree of intelligence, so you have as much relevance here as I do.  Obviously we have differing viewpoints, which is great as we can normally both learn from each other, perhaps moving just that much closer to the truth.  

Nowhere in the discussion did I see question of euclidian geometry, nor a debate attempting to disprove that the length of the hypotenuse of a triangle squared is equal to its rise squared plus its run squared.  So I ask again, what is the relevance?


----------



## MisterMike (Oct 3, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> Obviously we have differing viewpoints, which is great as we can normally both learn from each other, perhaps moving just that much closer to the truth.


Is that why you posted:



> Are you afraid to look outside your own little walled off utopia?


Pretty left field if you ask me. I described a couple of ways of looking at life in general, one form a more scientific standpoint, the other from a more "Relaxed" approach as someone else put it. Sounded like you were of the first group, typically characterized as people who need to see "the numbers" otherwise the insult you, so I merely posted something you might be able to accept.

Not exactly on the level of a Zen koan, but maybe if you had thought about it for a while it might have came to you.

Oh, and thanks for the neg rep points HardHead. Whilst not as low as the level of an anonymous "red dinger," I'd have thought you could have posted your comments here for all to see. I'm still all the more reformed now. You did a good deed.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 3, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Eveolution seems an adequate explanation to me. It's the only scientific theory we have at the moment, so while--like others before it--it could be wrong, there are currently no competitors to it.


Isn't that the question of the thread? Trying to see if there is sufficient reason to believe in a form of Intellegent Design? From what I've seen, its not the most thorough scientific treatment, more of a philosophical one at this point. If I'm wrong, correct me. I've not spent alot of time studying it.

A related question... Is ID just a code word for theistic evolution?

MrH


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Oct 3, 2005)

I think Intelligent Design simply means Creationism.  Just repackaged is all.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 3, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I voted yes. If it were so simple, wouldn't there be life on every planet? I mean, all it would have to do is evolve...
> 
> I really have to hand it to those so stuck on science. The need for proof/lack of faith mentality. Oh how it must feel to go through life, needing to have that firm grip on "reality," unable to just sit back in wonder or amazement... And then to have the audacity to criticize followers of other faiths... I'm getting sick.
> 
> ...


You could just say "You all are damned souls for pursuing science" and have been a lot more straightforward.


----------



## OUMoose (Oct 3, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Pretty left field if you ask me. I described a couple of ways of looking at life in general, one form a more scientific standpoint, the other from a more "Relaxed" approach as someone else put it. Sounded like you were of the first group, typically characterized as people who need to see "the numbers" otherwise the insult you, so I merely posted something you might be able to accept.
> 
> Not exactly on the level of a Zen koan, but maybe if you had thought about it for a while it might have came to you.



My apologies if you read insult into my comments.  However, statements like:


			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Oh how it must feel to go through life, needing to have that firm grip on "reality," unable to just sit back in wonder or amazement... And then to have the audacity to criticize followers of other faiths... I'm getting sick.


or


			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> It's evident right down to some of the martial styles they study. This foot here, that one there. This will happen if you do that. So controlling. No room for exploration. Total denial of the human spirit and that which they cannot control. It makes them feel safe, no matter what the situation. Too afraid to step into the unknown. Too much ego to lose. Too far up the black belt chain. Unwilling to step into the unknown, take risks, or let go of the hand that leads them. Like a child.


or even


			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> You call yourselves martial artists... Right. If that's the case we're at an all time low.


These aren't discussions topics nor life descriptions, they're insults.  Maybe I really don't know what that word means, so I looked it up:

Insult:  Verb.  To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness.

Contemptuous... another big word.  Lets review.
Contemptuous:  Adjective.  Manifesting or feeling contempt; scornful.

Hmmm.  Sort of a non-descriptive definition.  Just for clarification, lets look up scornful (or at least the root word, scorn).
Scorn:Contempt or disdain felt toward a person or object considered despicable or unworthy.

Unworthy?  Despicable?  Is that how you see the other members of this board, or just me?  If I'm the only target of your ire, so be it.  I've lived with worse.  If it is everyone, however, why?

I'm sorry that you see the need for proof as a mind cut off from the spirit.  Personally, I find blind faith just as disturbing.  

Note to everyone else reading this thread:  My utmost apologies for the thread hijacking.  I will try harder to stay with the topic.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 3, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Oh, and thanks for the neg rep points HardHead. Whilst not as low as the level of an anonymous "red dinger," I'd have thought you could have posted your comments here for all to see. I'm still all the more reformed now. You did a good deed.


This doesn't need to be addressed in thread.  If it starts private, keep it private please.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 3, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> My utmost apologies for the thread hijacking. I will try harder to stay with the topic.


Good.  Let's get back to it then.  You guys all know the potential for this stuff to overheat.  Help me out a bit, please.

Thanks folks. :asian:


----------



## arnisador (Oct 3, 2005)

OnlyAnEgg said:
			
		

> I think Intelligent Design simply means Creationism. Just repackaged is all.


I agree. Someone said (words to the effect of) "Intelligent Design is Creationism in a suit and tie." I understand where the ID people endeavour to draw a distinction, in that they accept the age of the earth at billions of years rather than thousands as in Creationism, but that seems like little difference to me.

As to the question of the thread, I agree that science isn't the only way to seek an answer to this question! But as it's a poll, I gave an indication of why I answered th epoll as I did. Put me down as not just a scientist but also a scientivist.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 3, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> These aren't discussions topics nor life descriptions, they're insults. Maybe I really don't know what that word means, so I looked it up:
> 
> Insult: Verb


You looked it up incorrectly, I'm afraid. You used the noun "insult(s)" but looked up the verb "insult" instead. Consider making the same error regarding the Holy See:

See: Verb. Perceive by sight or have the power to perceive by sight.

To put it another way, if one is to be pedantic, they should be...pedantic about it.

I don't think a definition of "insult" is very helpful. This is indeed a hot topic, but it's also a topic of real, current interest. Surely we can discuss it?


----------



## MisterMike (Oct 3, 2005)

You know what, close me out. I'm done for now, maybe I'll sign up again some day.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 3, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The "Intelligent Design" debate is heating up around the country and especially in Dover, Pennsylvania.  The fundamental question in this debate, in my opinion, is, "IS life so complex that it requires a designer?"



A question:

Do the organisms whom natural selection acts upons count as potential "designers"??

Laterz.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 3, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> A question:
> 
> Do the organisms whom natural selection acts upons count as potential "designers"??
> 
> Laterz.


This could be taken a few ways:

1: Is God himself is still evolving
2: we, a still evolving species, can influence evolution, either directly (genetic manipulation, ie genetically modified crops ect) or indirectly (polution, global warming, ect). This might not be considered "natural" selection, but still an important influence

So, which are you refereing to? consider God an "organism"? non-human organisms relevant? what about symbiotic relationships? Parasites?

MrH


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 3, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> upnorthkyoso ... I agree there is the beginning of evidence that life either exists, or at one time did exist on Mars. But, as of this time, the fact remains, I believe unproven. We do have proof of liquid water. And Everywhere else we encounter liquid water, we have found life. It is an exciting time for science.


There is a thread on MT that outlined the discovery of life's traces on the martian surface.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21771&highlight=Life+Mars


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 3, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> This could be taken a few ways:
> 
> 1: Is God himself is still evolving
> 2: we, a still evolving species, can influence evolution, either directly (genetic manipulation, ie genetically modified crops ect) or indirectly (polution, global warming, ect). This might not be considered "natural" selection, but still an important influence
> ...



Specifically, I was referring to the Baldwin Effect (which James Mark Baldwin himself referred to as 'organic selection') --- the phenomenon by which ontogenetic evolution can _indirectly_ influence phylogentic evolution. 

This effect, it is argued, can help explain the evolution of increasing phenotypic plasticity among more recent species (most notably human beings, whose brains are the most phenotypically 'plastic' structure in nature), as well as explain the supposed disparity between genetic data (which indicates gradualism) and morphological data (which indicates punctualism). 

This is to be distinguished from the now-discredited Lamarckism (which Baldwin himself argued against), which posits that ontogentic evolution _directly_ influences phylogenetic evolution (i.e., learned traits lead to an immediate adaptation in the organism's genome). Most of the supposed 'neo-Lamarckian' models presented by evolutionary theorists today are actually forms of Baldwinian evolution.

The examples you cited --- genetic engineering, global warming, industrial revolution, etc --- are all manifestations of the Baldwin Effect, which itself is somewhat reciprocal. A population, through collective 'learning', can develop the ability to interact with their environment in a way that is adaptive (such as, say, language or the use of tools). This will lead to changes in the environment (either minor or major) that the population must then adapt to if they are to prosper. This leads to further collective 'learning' (assuming the population doesn't die out, that is) in response to the new, more complicated environment, which once again poses new challenges to the population, which need to be adapted to via further communal 'learning'.... and, so on and so on.

Among other things, this phenomenon helps explain the Flynn Effect --- the steady increase in average I.Q. scores among all industrialized nations throughout the 20th century.

That all being said, I also subscribe to a form of neo-Hegelianism and feel long-term evolution gradually leads to greater and greater 'spiritual' realization (i.e., self-transcendence). I do not feel, however, that "God" necessarily changes or evolves in the strict sense...

Hope that sums everything up. Laterz.


----------



## andy (Oct 3, 2005)

What does not have a design? order from chaos?


----------



## MisterMike (Oct 3, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> You know what, close me out. I'm done for now, maybe I'll sign up again some day.


Clarification:

If an admin could close this account, please do.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 3, 2005)

andy said:
			
		

> What does not have a design? order from chaos?



It should be noted that 'design' doesn't necessarily equate to a personal 'intelligence'.

The Baldwin Effect shows us that populations can 'guide' their own evolution through communal 'learning', cultural transmission, and imitation --- and, that over the course of generations, these immediate morphological and phenotypic adaptations can accumulate into gradually emerging patterns within the population's genome. 

In other words, organisms that are more likely to independently 'learn' a new skill or ability (i.e., have a greater inclination toward phenotypic flexibility) will tend to adapt more effectively to the environmental niche. This skill or ability is then 'taught' to other members of the population (most likely through imitation), making it a mainstay of the population as a whole. Over time, organisms with the genetic makeup toward this form of phenotypic plasticity are favored, as it requires less effort and investment of resources for them to 'learn' the now-established skill or ability. Thus, gradually, phenotypic plasticity becomes an inherited part of the population's genome (as in the case of humans).

This phenomenon of organic selection also has interesting consequences pertaining to 'Intelligent Design'. No longer do we require an omnipotent Other to postulate the appearance of increasing 'design' or 'order' in nature. Such apparent 'design' can very well be the product of populations 'guiding' their own phylogenetic evolution through 'learning'.

Unfortunately for the 'metaphysical' versions of neo-Darwinism, however, it also demonstrates that the sheer randomness argument for complexity is large lacking in the face of apparent 'directional' trends in evolution. Ultimately, I think research into phenomena like this will lead to a gradual 'broadening' of our definition of natural selection.

Laterz.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 3, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Clarification:
> 
> If an admin could close this account, please do.


MisterMike - I would prefer that you don't go. Whilst we do not often agree on topics in the Study, I think your experience elsewhere is a benefit to the society. I, further, think that you, when in your nobler spirits, tend to keep those of us who view the world from the other side of the fence honest. 

In this topic, however, you seemed to hit boil before anyone turned up the heat.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 3, 2005)

andy said:
			
		

> What does not have a design? order from chaos?


 
Daniel Webster once said.



> ..."Men hang out their signs indicative of their respective trades; shoe makers hang out a gigantic shoe; jewelers a monster watch, and the dentist hangs out a gold tooth; but up in the Mountains of New Hampshire, God Almighty has hung out a sign to show that there He makes men."...


Was this a random geologic feature upon which Mr. Webster (perhaps under the spell of his encounter with the Devil) projected his own humanity? Or, was it just a rock?

Anyhow, it's gone now .... do we ascribe that to God, or Gravity?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 3, 2005)

If ID is the way to go, I've got a couple of questions...

1.  What did the "designer" actually do?
2.  How can we see that in nature?

If anyone can point to this, I'd be more apt to accept it as a scientific theory, however, everything I've read, thus far, has been conjecture.  

On the other hand, Dr. Andrew Knoll at Havard published and interesting book, Life on a Young Earth.  In it, he lays out an argument and shows evidence that supports the view that life started out much simpler then what we see now.  The earliest cells were very simple and are not very analogous to what we see now.  They were like carts with four wheels compared to formula one racers.  The similarities end with four wheels.  

The bottom line is that there is ample evidence of archaen and proterozoic cellular life...including fossils...some of them were even found in my neck of the woods.  The record shows that life evolved in response to the environment and I don't see very much room for a designer to fit in.  

Mars.  I brought out mars before because the above point dovetails nicely into the next.  If life has simple origins, then it is entirely plausible that life is extremely common in the universe.  The simple fact that we found life in one of the two spots we really looked should speak volumes.  If this is the case and simple life assembles readily where does the designer fit in?  Perhaps life isn't so complex after all...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 3, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The simple fact that we found life in one of the two spots we really looked should speak volumes. If this is the case and simple life assembles readily where does the designer fit in? Perhaps life isn't so complex after all...
> 
> upnorthkyosa


 One of 2?  Thats not such a big sampling and I would be wary of deciding that was evidence.  I could turn on the TV and "I love Lucy" could be playing and then change the channel and its not on the other... thats not strong evidence that "I love Lucy" is the predominant show on all 585 of my channels... If I found it on... 10 channels, then I might go... Hmmm... but I dont think 2 is a big enough sample to derive any conclusions from.

 (Personally I believe that there is a lot of life "out there" but I have no proof... just a random belief.)


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 3, 2005)

Depends on how you define spot...

 Really, we've only looked at one solar system.  It has life in it.

 Therefore I can conclude that all solar systems have life based on my 100% statistic...

 We don't have a sample, no matter how you look at it, given the size of the univers, or evenr the galaxy, it will be a very long time, if ever, before we have a good enough sized sample to draw any conclusions about the frequency of planets capable of creating and supporting life.


----------



## Kane (Oct 4, 2005)

Even if there is a designer to life, it doesn't mean the Yahweh God was the designer. There is no way in hell some creation myth from the middle east can have anymore validity than the cherokee creation myth (no offense).

 I'm a creationist, as well as an evolutionist. Why couldn't God use evolution to create life?

 The Vedic creation story at least has some truth in it, as it doesn't claim to know who this creator is.

 From Omshakti, Before the beginning, the Brahman (absolute reality) was one and non-dual. It thought, "I am only one -- may I become many." This caused a vibration which eventually became sound, and this sound was Om. Creation itself was set in motion by the vibration of Om. The closest approach to Brahman is that first sound, Om. Thus, this sacred symbol has become emblematic of Brahman just as images are emblematic of material objects. The vibration produced by chanting Om in the physical universe corresponds to the original vibration that first arose at the time of creation. The sound of Om is also called Pranava, meaning that it sustains life and runs through Prana or breath. Om also represents the four states of the Supreme Being. The three sounds in Om (AUM) represent the waking, dream and deep sleep states and the silence which surrounds Om represents the "Turiya" state.


 Here is a quote from the Rig Veda;

*The Song of Creation*

*Then there was neither Aught nor Nought, no air nor sky beyond.*

*What covered all? Where rested all? In watery gulf profound?*

*Nor death was then, nor deathlessness, nor change of night and day.*

*That One breathed calmly, self-sustained; nought else beyond it lay.*



*Gloom hid in gloom existed first - one sea, eluding view.*

*That One, a void in chaos wrapt, by inward fervour grew.*

*Within it first arose desire, the primal germ of mind,*

*Which nothing with existence links, as sages searching find.*



*The kindling ray that shot across the dark and drear abyss-*

*Was it beneath? or high aloft? What bard can answer this?*

*There fecundating powers were found, and mighty forces strove-*

*A self-supporting mass beneath, and energy above.*



*Who knows, who ever told, from whence this vast creation rose?*

*No gods had then been born - who then can e'er the truth disclose?*

*Whence sprang this world, and whether framed by hand divine or no-*

*Its lord in heaven alone can tell, if even he can show.*

 Notice how the creation story asks more questions than gives solutions. Because in truth there is only one way we can ever know God. That is through science and possibly through meditation.

 Anyways, just wanted to add a different perspective on creation, since now a days creationism is usually used more by judeo-christo-islamo creationists trying to prove their way if creation.

 There are other more complex religions out there that mankind can benefit from. Vedic Religions as well as Buddhism are examples .


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Oct 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The "Intelligent Design" debate is heating up around the country and especially in Dover, Pennsylvania. The fundamental question in this debate, in my opinion, is, "IS life so complex that it requires a designer?"
> 
> Please vote in the above poll and tell us why you believe this or why don't you believe this.


Good question. I just finished "Cosmos", the complete series by Carl Sagan on DVD. He says no; I say, I don't know...


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 4, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> One of 2? Thats not such a big sampling and I would be wary of deciding that was evidence. I could turn on the TV and "I love Lucy" could be playing and then change the channel and its not on the other... thats not strong evidence that "I love Lucy" is the predominant show on all 585 of my channels... If I found it on... 10 channels, then I might go... Hmmm... but I dont think 2 is a big enough sample to derive any conclusions from.
> 
> (Personally I believe that there is a lot of life "out there" but I have no proof... just a random belief.)


Its plenty big when you consider the numbers.  In fact, its more then big enough.  According to some, the chances that life would randomly assemble are are around 1x10^56 :1 and if our universe is only 15 billion years old, the fact that life formed at all is staggeringly amazing...according to those numbers.  

Finding life on Mars changes all of this.  Not only did life "miraculously appear" once in the universe, it appeared twice!  In fact, it appeared twice in the same solar system!  Coincidence?  No way.  The chances for this are so rediculously huge that its obvious.  Life must be MUCH more common in the universe then we ever expected.

It is instructive to remember that we are way out in BFE in our galaxy.  Our little solar system sits on the end of a little spiral arm and the bulk of our galaxies stars are very far away.  The conclusion that life is extremely rare in our universe is understandalbe.  However, I think it may end up being one of the "flat earth" ideas that people discard.  In the two places we looked, we found life in one...in this little podunk solar system way out in the boondocks...Its absolutely amazing.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> .
> 
> Finding life on Mars changes all of this.


 Just out of curiosity, what is the _proof_ of life on mars?  I recall in the late 90's, early 2000's they clamed there was life based on a meteor or spacerock or somthing, but it was always considered "Possibly bacterial life" and they didnt have hard evidence to prove it actually was... did the mars rover find somthing else? Id google for the proof of life on mars, but Im getting ready for work and olny have like 5 minutes here...


----------



## kenposis (Oct 4, 2005)

As one living very near the Dover debate, I've been involved with many of these discussions. The real question is not whether someone believes in God as the Creator or not (which I do, for clarification purposes), but whether ID is a plausible theory, though not necessarily a scientific one.

PM me if I need to say anything else, I need to get ready for class.
~Jessica


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 4, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, what is the _proof_ of life on mars? I recall in the late 90's, early 2000's they clamed there was life based on a meteor or spacerock or somthing, but it was always considered "Possibly bacterial life" and they didnt have hard evidence to prove it actually was... did the mars rover find somthing else? Id google for the proof of life on mars, but Im getting ready for work and olny have like 5 minutes here...


Upthread, I linked a MT thread on the subject.  The Mars Rovers did indeed find something...


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 4, 2005)

kenposis said:
			
		

> As one living very near the Dover debate, I've been involved with many of these discussions. The real question is not whether someone believes in God as the Creator or not (which I do, for clarification purposes), but whether ID is a plausible theory, though not necessarily a scientific one.
> 
> PM me if I need to say anything else, I need to get ready for class.
> ~Jessica


Jessica, the question *is* whether Intelligent Design is a plausible, scientific, theory. The lawsuit is about challenging the theory of evolution *and* introducing Intelligent Design into the biology classroom.

People supporting Intelligent Design spend a great deal of energy attacking the Theory of Evolution, because, like all science, our understanding is not complete. This creates targets of opportunity to attack.

People supporting Intelligent Design do not spend a great deal of time defending their own position, because, in that arena, weaknesses appear.

Intelligent Design does fairly well in colloquial discussion. Once the believers are seated and sworn to give testimony, the Intelligent Design discussion falls apart. This is what we will see in this current trial. Under cross-examination, cleared away from the smoke and mirrors, Intelligent Design is accurately portrayed as what it is; Creationism according to Fundamental Christianity. 

And that has no place in the science classroom.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 4, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Purpose is natural selection, doesn't need a designer.
> 
> Within any species there is a good deal of natural variation. Looking at people, we got different heights, widths, skin color, hair color, IQ, physical ability, etc.
> 
> Those who's natural variation gives them an advantage survive better, mate with others who are at a natural advantage and produce offspring which got started based on genes that have an advantage.


  Grant it, but is height, width, skin color, etc. mutable variations that offer some advantage?



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Those who's natural variation puts them at a disadvantage don't survive as well, and there gene lines are eventually removed as they die out.
> 
> Mutation will be excellerated by a change in environment, which will make the variations more important. Or rather specific variations more important.


 This could happen a bit faster in my opinion.  
 I'm not arguing against evolution, I think there is enough evidence to show this as accurate. (Visit Galapogos) What I'm saying is that the generally accepted "beginning point" of evolution is thin at best. Is it intellegent design? Who knows, but I dont think the "lucky one shot in infinite time" is an argument that holds much merrit. 
 Intellegent design is being labeled as creationism in a suit, but I think thats incorrect. As Heritic pointed out, it all depends on where you place the intellegence. 

  7sm


----------



## arnisador (Oct 4, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, what is the _proof_ of life on mars?


I thought it as just a matter of evidence of organic chemicals, like those that occur in living beings...but which could also appear without them.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 4, 2005)

Intelligent Design is not its own theory, as a practical matter; it's a series of attacks on evolution, as one would see upon perusing any book allegedly on the subject of ID. It's the false alternative approach--if evolution is wrong, _my_ pet theory, the only alternative, must be right!

Until I get a good answer to the question "Who designed the Dessigner?" I'm going to be very skeptical of ID.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Upthread, I linked a MT thread on the subject. The Mars Rovers did indeed find something...


Direct Quote from your Link:



> What Stoker and Lemke have found, according to several attendees of the private meeting, which took place Sunday, is not direct proof of life on Mars, but methane signatures and other signs of possible biological activity remarkably similar to those recently discovered in caves here on Earth.


 
So... thats not proof in my book.  Now... the aliens at Roswell on the other hand...


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 4, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Until I get a good answer to the question "Who designed the Dessigner?" I'm going to be very skeptical of ID.


The Spaghetti Monster.

No, I am not trying to be funny.  Look it up.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 4, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> The Spaghetti Monster.


OK, that's just wrong.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 4, 2005)

Flying Spaghetti Monster actually 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_Monster


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 4, 2005)

Ok, let's give that Earth was intellegently designed.  By Aliens... from Magarathea...  They however evolved


----------



## Blindside (Oct 4, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> The Spaghetti Monster.
> 
> No, I am not trying to be funny.  Look it up.



Oh my, I think I was touched by His Noodly Appendage and was forced to buy a t-shirt.

Lamont


----------



## arnisador (Oct 4, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Ok, let's give that Earth was intellegently designed. By Aliens... from Magarathea...


I can cite literary evidence in support of this theory.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 4, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Intellegent design is being labeled as creationism in a suit, but I think thats incorrect. As Heritic pointed out, it all depends on where you place the intellegence.



Errr.... something like that. 

The point I was making is that Baldwinian evolution demonstrates that an omnipotent Designer is _unnecessary_ because organisms and populations have, perhaps since the earliest prokaryotes, been subtly 'designing' and 'constraining' and 'guiding' their own phylogenetic evoluton for a long, long, long time. 

This is abundantly obvious among human beings, in which we use our evolved intelligence to create environments that _require_ even higher intelligence to flourish within. Thus, the Flynn Effect: the observation that average IQ scores have steadily and progressively risen among _all_ 20th century industrialized nations.

Essentially, its something of a circular system, a sort of internal feedback-loop. The population evolves a new skill or intelligence that lets them manipulate the environment to their benefit. This results in a more complex adaptive landscape which brings new adaptive challenges to the population. Reciprocally, even more intelligence or better skills are required to adapt to the new environment, which itself becomes more complex to the next generation. So on and so on and so on.

Not only does this completely blow away any critical validity 'Intelligent Design' may have had (you don't need an intelligent Other to design things when organisms and populations can do it themselves), but it also leaves gaping holes in orthodox neo-Darwinism. It shows us that evolution is _not_ entirely or even primarily 'random', that there _are_ some long-term 'directional' or 'linear' trends or patterns in evolutionary history, and (most importantly) it does away with the fallacious paradigm of 'genetic determinism' that neo-Darwinism has traditionally rested upon (it makes no sense to say genes determine an organism's adaptive fitness in the environment when you realize that an expressed phenotype can be quite different from the innate genotype).

I really will be interested to see how this and the post-Darwinian paradigms will expand our definitions and understandings of 'natural selection' in the coming decades. Very interesting stuff.

Laterz.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Oct 4, 2005)

I could never get the hang of Thursdays


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 4, 2005)

OnlyAnEgg said:
			
		

> I could never get the hang of Thursdays



Its Tuesday, actually.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Oct 4, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Its Tuesday, actually.


See?!


----------



## Shizen Shigoku (Oct 4, 2005)

Ok, so 'Intelligent Design' is the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.

 What's the question?


 Nevermind, I've just decided to convert to Pastafarianism.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 4, 2005)

no no no

 The answer is 42

 Maybe the question is "How many Universe Designers does it take to screw in a light bulb?"


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 4, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Maybe the question is "How many Universe Designers does it take to screw in a light bulb?"


Nah... cuz the answer to that is 1 if its made of spahgetti.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 4, 2005)

Or perhaps the spaghetti monster is made up of 42 pieces of spaghetti?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 4, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> So... thats not proof in my book. Now... the aliens at Roswell on the other hand...


The methane signatures found _are only made by living organisms_.  The only harder "proof" that could be found is to actually find an organism.  This is proof enough for many scientists...its like being in the room with another person and smelling a fart except that this fart has the definitive chemical signature of a burrito.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 4, 2005)

That's it. I'm quitting science.

:fart:


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 4, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> That's it. I'm quitting science.
> 
> :fart:


I'll join. Wanna stuff burritos?

MrH


----------



## arnisador (Oct 4, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> I'll join. Wanna stuff burritos?


Is that a double entendre in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?


----------



## Blindside (Oct 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The methane signatures found _are only made by living organisms_.  The only harder "proof" that could be found is to actually find an organism.  This is proof enough for many scientists...its like being in the room with another person and smelling a fart except that this fart has the definitive chemical signature of a burrito.



None of these findings have been peer reviewed, and lets remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (Sagan).

Lamont


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 4, 2005)

So an extraordinary claim, like "Out of the Billions of planets out there, we are the only intellegent life" would require extraordinary proof?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 4, 2005)

Blindside said:
			
		

> None of these findings have been peer reviewed, and lets remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (Sagan).
> 
> Lamont


Even the ones published in _Nature_?


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The methane signatures found _are only made by living organisms_..


Ah, I missed that part.  I only saw where they said they were SIMILAR to some found here on earth in caves.


----------



## Blindside (Oct 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Even the ones published in _Nature_?



Very cool, I hadn't realized they got published, and unfortunately I can't view that article because I don't have a subscription.  

An abstract of an alternate hypothesis for a non-biological source of  methane production: here 

Lamont


----------



## Blindside (Oct 4, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> So an extraordinary claim, like "Out of the Billions of planets out there, we are the only intellegent life" would require extraordinary proof?



Depending on how you enter the parameters of the Drake equation you get alot of different results for the probability of encountering intelligent life.  Personally, I think the idea that we are alone in the galaxy is nuts, but thats just me.  A friend of mine (who is an avid Star Trek fan BTW) is convinced that if there is other intelligent life in the universe then it looks just like us (humans) because "god created us in his image."

Oy.

Lamont


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 4, 2005)

It looks like a lot of people on MT do not see the need for a designer...according to the poll.  If this is the case, how does this affect your view of god?  Do you believe in god?  How does this affect your view of humanities place in the universe?

For those of you who do believe in a designer, think about and answer the same questions...


----------



## Blindside (Oct 4, 2005)

I'm one of those who voted "no" on the poll.  I don't believe in God or a god or gods, and that as humans we are an extremely lucky and well equipped species.  As for humanities place in this universe, if we continue to be lucky we will get off this rock, expand into this end of the spiral arm and continue to the human race will continue to split into different species, likely self induced.  If we are unlucky we will end up self-destructing or not leaving Earth, and the species ends when the sun goes nova.

Boom.

The universe however, will go on quite unaware and uncaring.

Lamont


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 4, 2005)

I said yes, and I believe strongly in god, and sadly, he isnt, IMHO, the Spaghetti Monster.


----------



## Marginal (Oct 5, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It looks like a lot of people on MT do not see the need for a designer...according to the poll.  If this is the case, how does this affect your view of god?  Do you believe in god?  How does this affect your view of humanities place in the universe?


I voted no. I don't beleive that humanity occupies a signifigant place or purpose in the universe. Even with a creator in the equation, this doesn't change, and it makes no sense to claim that it does. 

The two claims I routinely see (which are sometimes linked/offered together, sometimes not) 
1) Humanity is here to understand the universe.
2) Humanity is here to worship God.

Why does the universe need to understand itself? Why does God need worshippers? Neither makes a lick of sense.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 5, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I said yes, and I believe strongly in god, and sadly, he isnt, IMHO, the Spaghetti Monster.


  I can't decide if this is a sacrilegious statement or not!


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 5, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I can't decide if this is a sacrilegious statement or not!


*Shrug*  me either.  I think god has a sense of humor... look how long George Burns lived.  

Besides, if god was to appear to mankind as a big spaghetti monster, I think that would really make people stop and think.  About lunch, mostly... but stop and think nonetheless.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 5, 2005)

1. God is in every thing
 2. Spaghetti is a thing
 3. God is spaghetti


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 5, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> 1. God is in every thing
> 2. Spaghetti is a thing
> 3. God is spaghetti


  Aside from humor, this is completely incorrect. To be correct you would have to say:

  1. God is in everything
  2. Spaghetti is a thing
  3. God is *in* spaghetti

  7sm


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 5, 2005)

Since when have logical fallacy's not been allowed in god debates?


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Oct 5, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Since when have logical fallacy's not been allowed in god debates?


Ippon!


----------



## tradrockrat (Oct 5, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Aside from humor, this is completely incorrect. To be correct you would have to say:
> 
> 1. God is in everything
> 2. Spaghetti is a thing
> ...


 
Actually, it should be

1. Gos *IS* everything 
2. Spaghetti is a thing
3. God is spaghetti

:wink:


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 5, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It looks like a lot of people on MT do not see the need for a designer...according to the poll.



I have yet to vote on the poll, mostly because none of the answers adequately reflect my own thoughts on this subject.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If this is the case, how does this affect your view of god?  Do you believe in god?



Honestly, it depends on how you define 'God'.

If you are referring to a personal deity, then I am inclined to look upon such a figure as little more than a projection of the superego or conscience. In essence, a psychosocial construction whose purpose is to validate and reinforce the values, ideals, and mores that the psyche holds to be 'true' --- this is why the particular character of any given personal 'god' vary considerably from person to person, and culture to culture. This is abundantly obvious whenever such a deity simply 'commands' or 'ordains' rules and precepts that are clearly culture-specific or historically-contingent.

Such a figure is 'real' insofar as it is phenomenologically verifiable structure of the individual's psyche (whether conscious or unconscious), but lacks any empirical or 'objective' reality of its own.

I do, however, accept the reality of 'God' as postulated within the various perennial and mystical traditions. Namely, that 'God' is fundamentally _shunyata_ --- formless, unqualifiable, ineffable, indescribable, transcendent. The quotations from St. Dionysius I posted on another thread are pretty much an approximation of my view, as well.

Such an understanding of Deity, however, necessarily entails that it is not a 'he' separate from 'us' that is concerned with 'designing' or 'protecting' anything. Rather, all of existence or 'creation' is a manifetation or expression of said Deity, with the underlying 'urge' or 'impulse' to know Itself (so to speak).

Like I said, I am rather neo-Hegelian in my views.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> How does this affect your view of humanities place in the universe?



I think human beings are a product of evolution and, as such, confined within its various constraints. At the same time, however, I think nature is 'hard-wired' for the increasing emergence of intelligence and creativity (so to speak).

I hope I expressed my views well on this post. If not, I can further clarify.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 5, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I hope I expressed my views well on this post. If not, I can further clarify.
> 
> Laterz. :asian:


So what you are saying is that God is a Flying Spaghetti Monster?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 5, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Such a figure is 'real' insofar as it is phenomenologically verifiable structure of the individual's psyche (whether conscious or unconscious), but lacks any empirical or 'objective' reality of its own.


Would it be incorrect to assume that you think that "god" is the product of our minds and does not exist outside of own psyche?


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 5, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> So what you are saying is that God is a Flying Spaghetti Monster?



Yup. Exactly.  :boing2:


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 5, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Would it be incorrect to assume that you think that "god" is the product of our minds and does not exist outside of own psyche?



In the context I used, a personal deity is as 'real' to the devout as emotion and reason is to you and me. To the individual, it is phenomenologically real experience --- regardless of its lack of empirical or 'objective' validity.

The mind is tricky that way. 'Imaginary companions' are as real to pre-operational thinkers as the 'law' of cause and effect are to formal-operational thinkers. Its not a simple matter of truth vs untruth, as the mind is in no way a 'flat' structure. Its full of curves, swirls, bumps, and hills.

Not to mention, the delineation between the psyche of the individual and the psyche of the culture he or she is raised within is, at best, fluid.

Lastly, I also made clearly I believe in Godhead as Emptiness, as unqualifiable Spirit, a sort of nondual panentheism.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 6, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I think human beings are a product of evolution and, as such, confined within its various constraints. At the same time, however, I think nature is 'hard-wired' for the increasing emergence of intelligence and creativity (so to speak).
> 
> I hope I expressed my views well on this post. If not, I can further clarify.
> 
> Laterz. :asian:


You expressed your views on humanity and God with your usual long-winded clarity.  I fail, however, to see an account on your perspective concerning randomness v. design (or whatever other explanations are involved).  

In short, what's all this human psyche and God discussion have to do with how the world came about?


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 6, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> You expressed your views on humanity and God with your usual long-winded clarity. I fail, however, to see an account on your perspective concerning randomness v. design (or whatever other explanations are involved).
> 
> In short, what's all this human psyche and God discussion have to do with how the world came about?


Not that I need to speak for Heretic... but it was pretty clear to me that his post was a reply to this one just a few scant posts above it:



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It looks like a lot of people on MT do not see the need for a designer...according to the poll. If this is the case, how does this affect your view of god? Do you believe in god? How does this affect your view of humanities place in the universe?
> 
> For those of you who do believe in a designer, think about and answer the same questions...


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 8, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> You expressed your views on humanity and God with your usual long-winded clarity.  I fail, however, to see an account on your perspective concerning randomness v. design (or whatever other explanations are involved).



May I suggest you spend more time reading the thread histories of a discussion before committing anything in writing??

If you bother to go back over the last two to three pages, you will see I made three or so rather lengthy posts about Baldwinian evolution and 'organic selection' --- especially in regards to phenomena like the Flynn Effect. I went into how there may indeed be 'design' in evolutionary history, but it ain't necessarily form an omnipotent Other.

In summation, my point was that popular neo-Darwinian paradigms are inadequate to explain the full diversity and complexity of evolution as a whole. In addition, many such paradigms are riddled with a very archaic genetic determinism.

That's my take, anyway.



			
				RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> In short, what's all this human psyche and God discussion have to do with how the world came about?



See Technopunk's above post.

Laterz.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 8, 2005)

Do not post unless you've read all the preceeding pages.  Got it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 11, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The "Intelligent Design" debate is heating up around the country and especially in Dover, Pennsylvania. The fundamental question in this debate, in my opinion, is, "IS life so complex that it requires a designer?"
> 
> Please vote in the above poll and tell us why you believe this or why don't you believe this.


 It's John Wisdom's "Unseen Gardener" argument. 

"Two people return to their long neglected garden and find among the weeds a few of the old plants surprisingly vigorous. One says to the other 'It must be that a gardener has been coming and doing something about these plants'. Upon inquiry, they find that no neighbor has ever seen anyone at work in their garden. The first man says to the other 'He must have worked while people slept'. The other says 'No, someone would have heard him and besides, anybody who cared bout the plants would have kept down these weeds'. The first man says 'Look at the way these are arranged. There is purpose and a feeling for beauty here. I believe that someone comes, someone invisible to mortal eyes. I believe that the more carefully we look the more we shall find confirmation of this'." 

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Journal_Samples/HEYJ0018-1196~42~4~175/175.pdf

The problem with the philosophical question is it has only one variable with only one frame of reference. We have no way of knowing what a universe WITHOUT a creator looks like as opposed to one WITH. So we have no way of saying "Yes, the evidence is there." We have no way of interpreting the evidence scientifically.

This isn't to say that there isn't a "God"...But it certainly isn't scientifically verifiable.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 11, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> This isn't to say that there isn't a "God"...But it certainly isn't scientifically verifiable.



Not through biology, anyway. 

Laterz.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 12, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Not through biology, anyway.
> 
> Laterz.


 Not unless he just shows up one day and takes credit for it.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Not unless he just shows up one day and takes credit for it.


 OK, that might convince me!


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 12, 2005)

Okay, now, in all seriousness, guys....

If you're actually going with how the Divine is described _universally_ in the world's various wisdom traditions, then we're talking about something that is both transcendent (beyond all conceptualization and categorization) and immanent (within everywhere and everything). You're not going to find "proof" or "evidence" of something to that effect in biology or geology. Ever.

In fact, the very idea of the Divine as a sort of individual Watchmaker or personable Intelligent Designer is, at best, nothing but an allegory or metaphor (I would suggest Joseph Campbell's _Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor_ for an elaboration of this concept). At worst, its a manifestation of a sort of naive wish-fulfillment in which we collectively project some kind of cosmic Santa Claus onto the universe. Any example of "intelligent design" in nature is far more parsimoniously explained by the Baldwin Effect than by throwbacks to mythical creator father-figures.

If one were to attempt to "scientifically"* support the existence of the Divine, your best shot would be with the mystical and contemplative traditions within the various world religions. These traditions have in-depth works concerning specific injunctions or paradigms to engage in, the nature of the data, and a communal peer review to critically examine the data. That is far more than you can ask for than by looking at geological and biological records and claiming to see "intelligent design" there.

*Note: By "science", I am specifically referring to the definitions worked out and explained by philosophers Thomas Kuhn and Sir Karl Popper.

Laterz.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 12, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> In fact, the very idea of the Divine as a sort of individual Watchmaker or personable Intelligent Designer is, at best, nothing but an allegory or metaphor (I would suggest Joseph Campbell's _Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor_ for an elaboration of this concept). At worst, its a manifestation of a sort of naive wish-fulfillment in which we collectively project some kind of cosmic Santa Claus onto the universe. Any example of &quot;intelligent design&quot; in nature is far more parsimoniously explained by the Baldwin Effect than by throwbacks to mythical creator father-figures.


 I completely agreed with your last post except this one point. You stating that this idea is nothing but an allegory or metaphor is great, but hold the same weight as me stating the idea is nonrepresentative or even someone saying that the idea is tangible. Without proof or possibility of proof, we are all simply offering our beliefs, opinions, and at best educated guesses.

   7sm


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 12, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I completely agreed with your last post except this one point. You stating that this idea is nothing but an allegory or metaphor is great, but hold the same weight as me stating the idea is nonrepresentative or even someone saying that the idea is tangible. Without proof or possibility of proof, we are all simply offering our beliefs, opinions, and at best educated guesses.
> 
> 7sm



I offer as "proof" the collective experiences of the world's mystical traditions. They don't resort to fanciful explanations of "Intelligent Designers" or "Watchmakers".

In fact, upon receiving a mystical illumination himself, St. Aquinas summarily stopped his writing about "God" and proclaimed all of his previous work (including his rational "proofs" such as Argument From Design) to be "so much dung compared to what I have now been shown".

Please review some of the links I posted in my last post on "The Truth About Islam" thread.

Furthermore, I always find it interesting that this personable father-figure deity _always_ reflects the qualities and ideals of the person doing the believing. I guess its just magical coincidence "God" sounds a helluva lot like the person describing him.

Sorry, ain't buyin' it.

Laterz.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 12, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I offer as "proof" the collective experiences of the world's mystical traditions. They don't resort to fanciful explanations of "Intelligent Designers" or "Watchmakers".


 I wouldn't consider "collective experiences" as proof of much, let alone "collective experiences" that differ so dramatically. Lumping them together doesn't hide their differences.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Furthermore, I always find it interesting that this personable father-figure deity _always_ reflects the qualities and ideals of the person doing the believing. I guess its just magical coincidence "God" sounds a helluva lot like the person describing him.


 Maybe your just askin the wrong people. I certainly wouldn't describe this or any diety in any way close to me....hmmm

  7sm


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 12, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I wouldn't consider "collective experiences" as proof of much, let alone "collective experiences" that differ so dramatically. Lumping them together doesn't hide their differences.



I'm not denying the individual or cultural differences among the world's various mystics and contemplatives, but this is within the backdrop of a very broad range of general commonality and agreement. Again, please reference the links I posted in the "The Truth About Islam" thread that pertain to the West's various mystical traditions.

Also please note my particular use of "collective experiences" here. I am not referring to mere anecdotal accounts. Rather, these are the recorded experiences of individuals following particular meditative injunctions which are summarily confirmed or rejected by a community of peers (meaning, others that also participate in the previously mentioned injunctions). 

This is "science" in the broad sense, as understood by philosophers such as Peirce, Popper, and Kuhn. This "broad science" is to be distinguished from the "narrow science" or "scientism" (which generally only sees the natural or "hard" sciences as being valid forms of knowledge) that we see bandied about so much in popular culture. For elaboration of this theme, please see Ken Wilber's _The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion_.

Furthermore, this evidence is also corroborated by recent research in the field of neurotheology, which has documented distinctive brainwave patterns that correspond to particular meditative practices across cultures (comparing, for example, a Catholic monastic and a Tibetan Buddhist monk). It is shocking when contemplatives from different traditions originating from different continents show identical brainwave patterns while engaging in their respective practices.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Maybe your just askin the wrong people.



Not likely. This type of projectionism usually follows a very general form. 

Fire n' brimstone types believe in a wrathful God of Vengeance. Law n' order types believe in a God of Justice. Non-violent pacifists believe in a merciful, all-compassionate God of Love. Rational deists believe in a detached God of Reason. Modern spiritualists believe in an intimate God (or Goddess) of Nature.

In each case, the individual's view or depiction of their deity becomes a sort of "vessel" or "cup" for the projected contents of their superego, conscience, or highest ideals and mores. The god becomes a cosmologized embodiment of what the individual psyche believes "perfection" to be, based by their own individual standards. As such, the actual content or characteristics of the deity-figure vary in small ways from person to person and in larger ways from community to community and in even larger ways from culture to culture.

This is not a negative structure in and of itself, mind you, as sometimes the god-figure embodies very highly advanced morals and ideals. However, I feel it is little more than a carryover from the mythical belief structure of childhood and should be distinguished from genuine experiences of deity mysticism.

The main difference between the fantasy-god and deity mysticism is simple: the fantasy-god reinforces or confirms the psyche's sense of self, it basically tell you that everything you believe is right; the deity-form of mysticism, in juxtaposition, shatters or transforms the psyche's sense of self, forcing a genuine self-transformation that takes you beyond any sense of 'right'-ness or epistemological confidence you may have had beforehand.

The quotations from the contemplative St. John of the Cross that I cited on the "God Says Invade Iraq?" thread are a perfect example of deity mysticism.

Laterz.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 12, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Furthermore, this evidence is also corroborated by recent research in the field of neurotheology, which has documented distinctive brainwave patterns that correspond to particular meditative practices across cultures (comparing, for example, a Catholic monastic and a Tibetan Buddhist monk). It is shocking when contemplatives from different traditions originating from different continents show identical brainwave patterns while engaging in their respective practices.


 What does that prove or show? Your speaking of patterns which do not show specific thought process or especially belief.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Fire n' brimstone types believe in a wrathful God of Vengeance. Law n' order types believe in a God of Justice. Non-violent pacifists believe in a merciful, all-compassionate God of Love. Rational deists believe in a detached God of Reason. Modern spiritualists believe in an intimate God (or Goddess) of Nature.


 Rightly so, but your point is based on the assumption that "fire n' brimstone" types believe solely in a "wrathful God of Vengeance". Everyone identifies with characteristics of things that are similar, that just shows our differences. However, the truth is that most of these "types" do not believe solely in this one type of "god" but just simply identify heavily with this characteristic of "god". Asking a "fire n' bromstone type" about their "god" and getting the "wrathful" answer is great, but without delving further into their belief of "god" you may never hear their entire belief of their "god". 

  7sm


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 13, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> What does that prove or show?



Well, it proves these guys aren't just daydreaming or making this stuff up out of thin air. Mystical experiences have been shown to evoke very specific, concrete changes and patterns in the brain. This simply cannot be denied.

Also, it demonstrates that we are talking about a _shared experience_ here, not something that is the special product of a given culture or belief system. Many of the critics that guffaw at the findings of neurotheology are often those that like to believe their particular religious tradition is something especially special that no other religious tradition can begin to approximate --- ergo, the very idea of shared or universal experiences is something abhorrent to them. 

This rejection, of course, is based on self-confirming bias and an Appeal To Belief. 



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Your speaking of patterns which do not show specific thought process or especially belief.



"Belief" is pretty irrelevant here, as both the Catholic contemplative and the Tibetan Buddhist monk would tell you that what they are experiencing or identifyng with during this state is ultimately transcendental and ineffable in nature.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Rightly so, but your point is based on the assumption that "fire n' brimstone" types believe solely in a "wrathful God of Vengeance". Everyone identifies with characteristics of things that are similar, that just shows our differences. However, the truth is that most of these "types" do not believe solely in this one type of "god" but just simply identify heavily with this characteristic of "god". Asking a "fire n' bromstone type" about their "god" and getting the "wrathful" answer is great, but without delving further into their belief of "god" you may never hear their entire belief of their "god".



Those aspects or characteristics you're describing won't be a part of that person's conception of "god" if they don't hold said characteristics to be qualities of "perfection". Their deity is the embodiment of "perfection", a projection of the idealized contents of one's conscience or superego. If the rational deist doesn't hold vengeance and holy wrath to be their ideals of "perfection", then it won't be a quality of their "god". Likewise, if the fire 'n brimstone evangelical thinks logic is just a stupid human excuse for denying the Word, then he won't subscribe to a God of Reason. 

And, once again, their deity is also just a supernaturalistic way of condoning, reinforcing, or confirming their existing worldview. It is ultimately a way of solacing the self-system, giving one's ego a cosmic pat on the back. The deity mystic, by contrast, seeks to undermine or erradicate the self-system, to transcend a merely egoistic identity altogether.

Sorry, but I'm gonna have to go with St. Gregory of Nyssa on this one: every concept of God becomes a false idol which cannot reveal God himself. So to speak.

Laterz.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 13, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Those aspects or characteristics you're describing won't be a part of that person's conception of "god" if they don't hold said characteristics to be qualities of "perfection". Their deity is the embodiment of "perfection", a projection of the idealized contents of one's conscience or superego. If the rational deist doesn't hold vengeance and holy wrath to be their ideals of "perfection", then it won't be a quality of their "god". Likewise, if the fire 'n brimstone evangelical thinks logic is just a stupid human excuse for denying the Word, then he won't subscribe to a God of Reason.


 Holding said characteristics as qualties of "perfection" is not the same as holding said characteristic as the sole quality of "perfection". Your explination of their belif system is merely speculation on your part now. 


> Their deity is the embodiment of "perfection", a projection of the idealized contents of one's conscience or superego. If the rational deist doesn't hold vengeance and holy wrath to be their ideals of "perfection", then it won't be a quality of their "god".


 This is your explination of their belief, you cant assume such things of someone or a group of people. 

  7sm


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 13, 2005)

7starmantis,

Sorry if you misunderstood me. My argument is that, for most people, any given deity they believe in _tends to_ serve as a vessel for the collective of traits or characteristics that they hold to be "perfect". It often is a projection for the contents of the individual's superego, with very little substantive reality of its own (i.e., dependent on the ideals, mores, and values of the person doing the "believing").

I can make these "assumptions" because very, very few people believe their god embodies characteristics they hold to be flawed, weak, or imperfect. How many people believe their god to be lazy? Deceitful? Malevolent? I certainly don't know of anyone that does. Such characteristics are usually projected into a counter-deity (the Devil in traditional Western consciousness), often with the "good" deity being higher or more powerful than the "bad".

Because of this, the actual nature of the deity and the counter-deity will vary widely from person to person. The deity embodies what the individual holds to be the very "highest" or most "perfect" ideals, the counter-deity the "lowest" or most "imperfect". And, since individual minds are heavily conditioned and influenced by the cultures they find themselves in, much of the nature of these deities is historically-contingent and culturally relative.

Laterz.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 14, 2005)

I disagree, your using the fact that there is a connection between religions or "mystics" of the world and history to mean that its false, but that only a matter of opinion. In fact, the idea that people share these beliefs or "experiences" about "god" could vary easily be used to prove his existence.

This is however way off topic, so we should get back on topic of this thread.

7sm


----------



## Loki (Oct 14, 2005)

I don't know what 10-page long debate ensued here, but I'm responding to the original post.

 I won't go ahead and say I'm 100% certain, but I see no convincing reason to believe life couldn't have happened by itself. All arguments I've heard to date about the origins of life (this thread notwithstanding since I haven't read it) were either pseudoscientific or ignorant (i.e. arguing from ignorance).

 One interesting argument is called irreducible complexity. It states that if a system were to have a single part in it removed or slightly altered, it wouldn't work. An engine, for example, has to have all it's parts in position and proportion with each other in order to work. If you removed the pistons, it would stop working.

 The bombardier beetle is often used as an example of this. However, even if this argument were correct (it's not), this wouldn't automatically prove the existence of your friendly neighborhood creator. Would it poke a hole in natural selection? Yes, but not much more.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 14, 2005)

Sounds like the Babel fish argument to me!


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 15, 2005)

Is life so complex that it requires a designer?

Good question.

My wife wants to paint in order to add expansiveness and color to the living room.  I want to get rid of the old couch, but she thinks it would look good with an accessory rug and accent pillows.

We don't know WHAT to do with her father's paintings, and have disagreed with what curtains to put on the picture window overlooking the deck.  She says burgundy, I want oyster shell and would like to ditch the corinthian curtain rods that came with the place when we bought it.


I'd say, yes.  Life is so complex that it requires a designer.

Incidentally, Gay Christians have recently come out in favor of intelligent interior design.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 20, 2005)

The sound of a 'smack down' was heard in the Federal Courtroom in Pennsylvania this morning. 

The Judge basically said ... 

We respect your beliefs. Keep them out of the science classroom. 

I paraphrase this too ... 

You can put lipstick on a pig, but I still ain't kissin' it.


----------



## Bigshadow (Dec 20, 2005)

Given enough time and all the pieces, eventually something will happen, plain and simple. Now I am inclined to believe that there may be intelligent design, but in no way do I think there HAS to be an intelligent designer.

Face it 1000 years ago, some things that were considered divine and have since been explained with math and science. I believe we have only scratched the surface.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 20, 2005)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> Given enough time and all the pieces, eventually something will happen, plain and simple. Now I am inclined to believe that there may be intelligent design, but in no way do I think there HAS to be an intelligent designer.
> 
> Face it 1000 years ago, some things that were considered divine and have since been explained with math and science. I believe we have only scratched the surface.


 
Most of the supposed contradictions that proponents of Intelligent Design claim exist in evolutionary theory are more parsimoniously explained by organic selection (i.e., the manipulation of a population's environment by virtue of learning) than by appealing to a transcendent Other.

This isn't anything new, either. James Mark Baldwin published his "A New Factor in Evolution" in 1896. It's been around for awhile.

Laterz.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 20, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> This isn't anything new, either. James Mark Baldwin published his "A New Factor in Evolution" in 1896. It's been around for awhile.



Age of a concept is irrelevant. bible has been around longer than James Baldwin. Nah nah nah nah nah 

hehe



> You can put lipstick on a pig, but I still ain't kissin' it.


Nice to know where you stand. Thanks for the commentary! LOL



> Face it 1000 years ago, some things that were considered divine and have since been explained with math and science. I believe we have only scratched the surface.



Many things have been, many things have not. Will science uncover everything? Doubtful. Its a matter of where your faith is I suppose... Change one religion for another.

MrH


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 20, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Many things have been, many things have not. Will science uncover everything? Doubtful. Its a matter of where your faith is I suppose... Change one religion for another.


 
Science is not religion. To insinuate that it is displays a lack of understanding, or a desire to muddy the debate. 

Many things are unknowable through science. Many of those exist in the realm of faith. Many scientists have no problem with that concept. It seems, however, the reverse is not true.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 20, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Science is not religion. To insinuate that it is displays a lack of understanding, or a desire to muddy the debate.



Depends on your definition of religion.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 20, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Science is not religion. To insinuate that it is displays a lack of understanding, or a desire to muddy the debate.
> 
> Many things are unknowable through science. Many of those exist in the realm of faith. Many scientists have no problem with that concept. It seems, however, the reverse is not true.



Thats a sweeping generalization which could be made of the "other side" by saying that the acceptance of science as absolute truth is a sort of dogma in sheeps clothing. Many people believe science as the end all and accept what "science" says much like a religion on a faith type basis. 

7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 20, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Thats a sweeping generalization which could be made of the "other side" by saying that the acceptance of science as absolute truth is a sort of dogma in sheeps clothing. Many people believe science as the end all and accept what "science" says much like a religion on a faith type basis.
> 
> 7sm


 

Did I read this right? 

Are you saying that someone makes the claim that "science is absolute truth"?

Who? When? Where?


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 20, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Thats a sweeping generalization which could be made of the "other side" by saying that the acceptance of science as absolute truth is a sort of dogma in sheeps clothing.


 
They could make that claim, of course, but then reality would slap them in the face.

"Science", as in the _scientific method_, is not a religion. It is a means of acquiring and analyzing information about ourselves (psychology & sociology) and the world (physics, biology, & chemistry). That is all.

Of course, you could make the claim that things like "secular humanism", "scientism", "rational empiricism", or "scientific materialism" are all religions of sorts. And I would probably agree with you. However, this should be distinguished from the scientific method itself, which does not intrinsically subscribe to any given philosophy or worldview.

The claim that scientific knowledge is viewed as "absolute truth" is pretty damn hilarious, when you consider the *core* idea of the scientific method is that science only deals in propositional truth and (via peer review) is perpetually self-correcting.

The dogma criticism has some merits in certain areas of some fields, but the overall truth is that science requires peer-reviewed data to fall into positive favor here. You couldn't just make baseless claims without some pretty heavy criticism by about a hundred of your peers more than willing to tear your new pet theory apart.

Hell, some scientists make it their personal mission to try and deconstruct long standing and orthodox theories and assumptions within their fields. If you disproved, say, Einstein or Darwin, that'd certainly land you a nobel prize.

Laterz.


----------



## Ceicei (Dec 20, 2005)

Life doesn't "require" a designer.  We make our lives as simple or as complex.  If the designer is part of that life for the person, then so be it.

- Ceicei


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 20, 2005)

*scratches head* Hasn't this been discussed elsewhere on MT? A search did not bring it up, but I seem to recall the same conversation.


----------



## Ceicei (Dec 20, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> *scratches head* Hasn't this been discussed elsewhere on MT? A search did not bring it up, but I seem to recall the same conversation.



Probably.  Many of these topics do get brought up in one way or another on MT.

- Ceicei


----------



## arnisador (Dec 20, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Hell, some scientists make it their personal mission to try and deconstruct long standing and orthodox theories and assumptions within their fields. If you disproved, say, Einstein or Darwin, that'd certainly land you a nobel prize.


 
Not likely, unless you constructed an alternate theory in its place. Many people found anomalies that didn't match Newtonian physics--e.g., why don't electrons spinning around atoms have decaying orbits that eventually collapse?--but no one got a Nobel until they came up with a replacement theory of their own. Experimental evidence disproves the theory, but it takes setting your own theory up as the next target to really get attention in most cases.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 20, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Science is not religion.





			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> Depends on your definition of religion.


 
No, really, it doesn't.


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 21, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Depends on your definition of religion.



No, it doesn't, unless your definition of religion is so sweeping as to be meaningless.

But then, that's an oft-used tactic of anti-science crusaders.  It's much easier, for them, to redefine words than it is to do the real work that good science requires.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 21, 2005)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> No, it doesn't, unless your definition of religion is so sweeping as to be meaningless.
> 
> But then, that's an oft-used tactic of anti-science crusaders.  It's much easier, for them, to redefine words than it is to do the real work that good science requires.



Then how do we define religion? How about atheism? Is lack of belief a religion? agnostic? Those who seek or don't have enough evidence? Is it a matter of faith? Since we all have faith of some sort (to the point of ridiculous, you don't check your chairs when you sit down), is it a matter of where we put out faith? Must religion be organized? Must there be a central authority? How about spiritualism? Is it a matter of seeking answers about life and the universe? You can define your definition of religion to suite yourself. (waits for the dictionary links to appear). Regardless, its diverging from the original intent of the thread... perhaps another thread on the topic is in order?

Defining religion is not anti-science, nor "real work". Some use a broad definition, some use a narrow. I don't consider myself anti-science, especially since I'm a scientist. However, I do have a broad interpretation of what religion is. As science has progressed, its been trying to answer more and more questions that has generally been left in the hands of religion. Is this bad? I don't think so. But it does start crossing the line between religion and non-religion. Some follow science with the same furvor of the religious fanatic, and hold by its tenets as strongly. To me, thats expressing faith (perhaps not in the results, but the process?).

With regard to stepping into the bounds of religion, I guess a little clarification is useful.  Science is good at answering certain questions. The process is useful in many quests for knowledge. However, as science has progressed, its own set of "morality" has emerged. If we examine science w/out some form of external morality, we run into problems. Are the expirements performed by the Nazi's science? Is the science performed moral? If we remove the morality, or allow its own morality to develop (whatever is good for science is ok), we start having problems:

Naziesque human expirementation
Animal torture for medical benefits
Development of modern abortion techniques
Cloning techniques being applied to humans

Now, are all of these wrong? People disagree. However, the answers should -not- be saught from the realm of science, though many find their answers there.


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 21, 2005)

That judgement was damning, but I'm satisfied with the outcome.  In the end, the judge predicated the decision on the separation of church and state.  That, I believe, was the correct way to look at it.  

I have a question.  For those that believe that all this is a result of some intelligent design:  by what or whom was it designed?  Further, what was the process by which the designer implemented this design?


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 21, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> They could make that claim, of course, but then reality would slap them in the face.


 Of course, because sweeping generalizations are only valid if describing those who do not agree with us 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> "Science", as in the _scientific method_, is not a religion. It is a means of acquiring and analyzing information about ourselves (psychology & sociology) and the world (physics, biology, & chemistry). That is all.


 Wow, ok...um...you seem to have taken my post for alot more than it was. I never said science was a religion and I never said anything about the scientific method. What I did say was that there are people who take "science" as dogma in that they blindly hold its "truth" as self-evident and accept it all on a faith basis. This is not how science is to be used and is much like a religion in and of itself. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Of course, you could make the claim that things like "secular humanism", "scientism", "rational empiricism", or "scientific materialism" are all religions of sorts. And I would probably agree with you. However, this should be distinguished from the scientific method itself, which does not intrinsically subscribe to any given philosophy or worldview.


 It is distinguished from the scientific method, in your haste to make that point you overlooked that I didn't actually say anything close to that. It could be that you are attempting to discredit my argument by twisting my posts, but I much prefer to assume it was an oversight. :wink:



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The claim that scientific knowledge is viewed as "absolute truth" is pretty damn hilarious, when you consider the *core* idea of the scientific method is that science only deals in propositional truth and (via peer review) is perpetually self-correcting.


 I agree, it is pretty damn hillarious, and I laugh uncontrolably at those who view it as such, but it is still viewed as such by some people. Just because you dont subscribe to that ideology doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I wasn't refering to you personally, I think you may have taken my post as aimed at you. 

7sm


----------

