I don't get why Complexity implies Intelligent Design. A vase on a table

[patrice]

isn't as complex as one shattered on the floor and the difference between the two could be factored as nothing more than time, intelligence isn't necessary to change the vase into a more complex form. I know Evolution isn't about "in-animate" objects, so just substitute a pear on a table, and the same pear smashed on the floor and place that within the context of multiple simultaneous, and otherwise, changes in the state of other pears and ALL other "natural" phenomenology within the context of what we call the Universe. It would seem to me that Complexity would be the sine qua non, that without which there is naught. Complexification is normal in "Reality", deus ex machina isn't necessary.

[libertynliberalism]

1. To play the advocate

To play the advocate...how would the vase get there? Who put it there?

[patrice]

5. They got "there" the same way everything else "gets" anywhere,

through Change, which is relatively Constant. I think maybe that answers to the questions about Change, of how the vase got there, that imply something/someone outside or separate, acting upon other things, is a type of limitation I don't accept. I we have to call it God for social communication, it is by definition everywhere, there's nothing separate to act upon. So who put it there, might be better phrased as why is it here? or what is it for?

Just free associating here . . .

[libertynliberalism]

11. Hmm..

"through Change, which is relatively Constant. I think maybe that answers to the questions about Change, of how the vase got there, that imply something/someone outside or separate, acting upon other things, is a type of limitation I don't accept. "



Hmm..so if I read you right, what you're saying is that what is here NOW, has ALWAYS been there since ETERNITY, but has simply been changing FORMS or STATES through the ages at random, and that randomness is natural..

[patrice]

14. Change is what we Sense/Perceive of whatever "it" "is".

[Leopolds Ghost]

69. See my post #66 and (especially) #67 :^)

Hmm..so if I read you right, what you're saying is that what is here
NOW, has ALWAYS been there since ETERNITY, but has simply been changing
FORMS or STATES through the ages at random, and that randomness is natural..

Or, what the original poster could be saying is that Change is the underlying measurement of a constant 4th-dimensional you, all parts of which are eternal. :-)

Your conscious self being a mere 2-dimensional epiphenomena that is incapable of accessing other moments in space-time except those immediately adjacent, you are of course unaware that you will always be conscious of this moment, here, now.

You might not even be conscious of anything else. Some other part of your brain might be. Your conscious self could wink out at any moment, for eternity, only to be replaced with some other conscience :scared: :scared:

The fact that you are, molecularly and mentally, not the same person you were when you were older/younger certainly does not come as any comfort when considering this possibility.

[arewenotdemo]

74. That's right, the Universe has always existed.

And always will exist. The Big Bang theory (at least as I understand it) is therefore problematic as it does not address the issue of creation/infinity. Obviously, an infinite Universe requires no "Creator" in the conventional sense of the word.

At least that's what the Universal Mind tells me.

[Leopolds Ghost]

76. Perhaps, perhaps not. See post #67

It's not necessary to assert that time is infinite to claim that the
Universe is infinite, since the universe contains all possible times.

Space and time are rather closely linked relative to matter, and it's kind of hard to call space infinite...

(To the degree I understand Einstein's theory of space-time, the notion of relativistic space-time infinitely distant of all matter, is pretty tenuous. It might not be possible for space-time to exist in the absence of matter and/or consciousness. Then again, if there is an infinite amount of matter in the universe, it could be that the bounds of space-time are also infinite...?)

[JJackFlash]

2. the eyeball

Creationists try desperately to come up with things that are too complex to possibly have evolved by chance and mutation over time, such as the eyeball. They get debunked over & over & over again, but it doesn't stop the fools.

"Intelligent design" is just another name for Creationism that they've had some success with. ID is all about trying to discredit the idea that man evolved from apes, that's all.

I don't have any patience with these nitwits, but PZ Myers does a great job taking them apart here:
http://pharyngula.org/

[patrice]

7. Limited total amount of Matter over Infinite (possibly) Time would Change

in all possible change combinations of physical phenomena, resulting in all possible permutations of Matter, all Forms of Matter. In large enough of a context of space and time, any physical phenomenon could "happen".

You've heard this said in this manner: Give a bunch of monkeys word processors and Infinity, they will eventually produce the Oxford English Dictionary.

[libertynliberalism]

20. The monkey/dictionary analogy is interesting, it makes

me wonder. If we (the earth) are an example of the perfect oxford english dictionary, ie the exact permutation, there must be several inexact attempts or states of life in some other part of the universe.

Assuming the universe is infinite, If earth is the example of series of changes that led to what we know of as human and other life forms, there have got to be other places in universe where the sequence of changes was close but not quite like earth, thus life had to have formed somewhere else also, just in some different form.

I think there is life outside earth.

[porphyrian]

96. It didn't necessarily have to happen in a different space...

...it could or could have happen or happened in a different time. However, given the amount of space and the amount of motion within that space, it is less likely that it happened in exactly the same space at a different time, except as time approaches infinity.

[Jim__]

21. ... any physical phenomenon could "happen".

I believe that's correct, any physical phenomenon "could" happen. However, that's not the same as every possible physical phenomenon would happen. For instance, your example: Give a bunch of monkeys word processors and Infinity, they will eventually produce the Oxford English Dictionary. It could happen. But, off the top of my head, I believe the probability of them producing the Oxford English Dictionary is zero - they can produce an infinite number of strings on those word processors; so, even given an infinity of time, they won't necessarily poduce the Oxford English Dictionary.

However, put these monkeys in an environment where whenever their typing puts a character in the place that corresponds to this same character in the Oxford English Dictionary; then, for all the new strings that they type, retain these characters in these places, and you'll converge to the Oxford English Dictionary rather quickly. So, it's not that difficult to derive complexity, if "something" favors its development. Evolution is not random; mutations are random; but selection is a rule establishing which mutations survive and reproduce. In such an environment, random mutations, with selections, can arguably (I don't believe it's been proven yet) produce the type of complexity required for life.

[pilgrimsoul]

29. What about -

Give a bunch of monkeys word processors and infinity, and they will eventually produce the Bible! hehehe

[patrice]

58. Yep.

[Leopolds Ghost]

70. As a Christian m'self, I believe God did exactly that.

It took a hell of alot of time and a lot of dead monkeys, though.

And the result was not perfect (plenty of errors and omissions in the final document, and the monkeys trashed and ate alot of the pages).

[Marie26]

55. How do "Intelligent Designers" explain all the evolutionary dead-ends?

Did God make a mistake when he designed the Neanderthals, the saber-tooth tiger? I thought God was perfect and couldn't make mistakes. If the bird flu virus mutates to hurt people, wouldn't they have to say God designed this change as well?

[Leopolds Ghost]

71. Hey, WATCH it buddy! Us Neanderthals aren't going anywhere

Next time, do some research on your imperialist, Homo Sapiens Sapiens theories of perfection and beauty.

:silly:

[HereSince1628]

87. The point you make WAS used as an argument AGAINST extinction

Most people don't realize that well into the 1800's extinction was considered impossible because of a notion that can be summarized as "God doesn't make junk."

Yet as much as people searched the corners of the globe, living critters represented by the boney remains of megafauna uncovered beneath Paris were never found.

Thomas Jefferson was among those who didn't accept the notion of evolution. And his is an example of the thinking that led to the myth of the flesh eating elephant in the American west based on mastadon skulls.

[ret5hd]

3. well, actually, the unbroken vase IS more complex (ordered) than the...

shattered vase. Read a little about the definitions of entropy and chaos...the definitions may not be what you think they are.

(I find this subject fascinating. It even ties in to why we experience time in the "direction" we do.)

[JJackFlash]

9. That's what I was thinking

The unbroken vase is more ordered and more complex than the shattered vase.
Tha shattered vase has become a victim of entropy.

[patrice]

10. Yes, entropy crossed my mind when I was writing that. You are right.

Although there are untested assumptions in assuming "higher" complexity. There are un-tested assumptions in anything we say.

If the vase is the more complex form, its intelligent designer is man. What can be said of the pear? Why would it need anything besides Change to be?

[mondo joe]

23. Where in physics is this "Change" factor of yours?

[Leopolds Ghost]

72. Dimensionality, same as consciousness, I'd venture

But I'm coming at it from an (academic) metaphysics standpoint,
I am not an expert in higher math.

[shenmue]

4. Depends on what one means by 'complex'

Complexity is in the eye of the beholder. Cells are pretty simple things when you get right down to it. Can't get much smaller than them. Put a bunch of them together and have them doing different things, and it makes that thing take up more space, but it's not necessarily very complicated.

[patrice]

16. Like some programs.

[shenmue]

52. True

Right you are

:7

:thumbsup:

[Leopolds Ghost]

73. Emergent Behavior

(mental image of Fundamentalists emerging from the primordial ooze and electing Bush at the prompting of simple stimuli)

[mwb970]

86. "Cells are pretty simple things"?

Sorry, I can't go along with that one. How much do you know about the chemical reactions that occur within cells?

[shenmue]

94. Don't patronize me

As much as most do. I repeat, they are not that complicated.

[leftofthedial]

6. it doesn't. "Irreducable complexity" and othe ID bullshit

is just an example of classic sophistry to amuse the broken minds of the religiously insane.

it's just like arguing about how many angels can crap on the head of a pin.

[mondo joe]

25. "Irreducible complexity" is just another name for "personal incredulity".

Which really has no place in science.

[leftofthedial]

43. true

true

two for two

[Warren DeMontague]

89. Agreed. Saying "this is too complicated to have happened on its own"

is a statement with no scientific basis, whatsoever.

More like a failure of the imagination, if you ask me. But, then, that's kind of my take on much of the history of western religion, period.

[Nitrogenica]

8. The case for the possible spread of the bird flu implies

that the virus evolves into a virus that can infect humans.

The Fundies should not fear the bird flu then?

[JJackFlash]

12. I've heard them say that, yes

At least the ones who say that are being consistent with their idiocy.
Wouldn't stop them from taking a bird flu vaccine, though, if one were available.

[ochazuke]

13. IDiots

Seeing something wondrous and then thinking 'someone must have made this' just shows the POVERTY OF SPIRIT AND IMAGINATION that is a hallmark of religious zealots everywhere. (all caps added for insult) :)

[patrice]

18. You are so totally right. They miss the Mystery in their (circular)

obsession with the Bible and "God". Really, they HAVE killed God, just like Nietzsche said.

[ComerPerro]

88. Exactly. Its just an easy out

When stripped down to its most basic principles, Intelligent Design is really no different than saying that rainbows are Gods promise to us that he won't destroy us in a flood.

Why not teach that in science class.

[Mr_Spock]

15. Intelligent Design - Explanations for un-intelligent people AKA morons

The people who refuse to listen to facts and reason in the RW party in the WH are the same mentally lazy baboons who refuse to read the facts about evolution and instead want to come up with a "partial magic" theory to replace the outdated "all magic" theory. :eyes:

whatever...

[POAS]

17. Complexity created God:

As our brains evolved and became more complex we began to seek answers to ever more complex questions but our curiosity evolved faster than our intellect so we invented God to fill in the gaps in our understanding.

[patrice]

19. That's why the first commandment is to have no false gods.

That's the most common thing we do. Invent a God that is surprisingly similar to us, a comforting father figure, our ace in the hole . . . until you die that is.

[WiseButAngrySara]

22. Assume the 'Big Bang' Theory is correct. From what source did the

matter arise from which the big bang resulted, and produced eons of complex development, that at times seems too perfect to have ever been random. How do we even think about it? How can we be conscious of the mystery of matter itself, let alone the beautiful complexities of DNA, the periodic table, mathematics, music, chlorophyll, and etc., etc., etc.

I would argue that the only conceivable possibility of our complex life, one in which we can wonder about it, has to be life by Intelligent Design. How can we understand things? We know cause and effect by the senses and logic, but that is the realm of science and the study of phenomena. We come to appreciate Intelligent Design through science, but Intelligent Design can only be inferred, and never proven scientifically, and is therefore out of the realm of science, and should NEVER be taught as such.

"Complexification is normal in "Reality", deus ex machina isn't necessary."

My viewpoint is that God is indeed in the entire machine, a Spinoza's God, such that 'God is Nature, and Nature God.'

[mondo joe]

24. Why did matter what to arise? Why couldn't the matter always BE?

Why is nothingness assumed to be the default?

And if an intelligent designer is needed to explain our intelligence, what explains the intelligence of the designer?

[libertynliberalism]

26. Yes, I wonder what gave God HIS intelligence

"And if an intelligent designer is needed to explain our intelligence, what explains the intelligence of the designer?"

Good point, who gave god his intelligence. I think what we call God is manifested in all forms of creation in us and around us. You can call it God, or entropy or whatever. We just tend to ascribe this phenomenon to be this morally benign entity and call it God.

[mondo joe]

27. But do you believe god has an intelligence?

Even if God is just an organizing principle, if you begin with the belief that order can only be the product of a designer, you are simply pushing off the question of who designed the designer.

[WiseButAngrySara]

28. I'm not inferring that we are separate from the intelligence of the design

-er. The entire universe is conscious intelligence in my way of thinking, the whole of which is usually called God. The word God has been greatly misinterpreted through organized dull religious teachings, some of which have been used for political purposes, and others just because of frank misinterpretation of great teachers, such as Jesus Christ.

Intelligence is. Matter comes from it. We are part of and equivalent in God, which is why a democratic form of government is the ideal.

[bluedawg12]

31. Nice tie in with democracy!

Or we could be part of a grand random system in which we are the apex of intelligence, limited though it is.

We can neither create energy or destroy it.

We can however, through some chemical processes, formulate concepts, and self awareness, thus allowing us to sit here and type abstract ideas to each other. In the absence of any empiric proof that we are not the highest level of intellect in the universe, I can only conclude that we are god.

Which is why anything other than democracy is ill suited for the level of intellectual function we have achieved.

I also believe that given our hand in selecting creatures other than ourselves, and breeding them for adaptability, that domestic cats and dogs are evolving faster than we are, and in a few million years, with or with an opposable thumb, they will be smarter and faster than we are, and we will, I predict, either be their pets or their dinner.

[WiseButAngrySara]

39. IMO, consciousness is energy, and not matter. But who knows? Maybe

they are equivalent, and have never existed separately. My dog would agree with your prediction about evolution, and some current thinkers would too! E. Tolle for instance, in The Power of Now. thinks that human's minds have become so destructive that we will either be forced into a higher state of consciousness, or we will destroy ourselves and the environment. Since 2000, I have sadly concurred that the later scenario is more likely.

[mondo joe]

41. Consciousness is not free floating energy, but the result of a chemical

process of matter. We don't find conscioussness without it originating from matter.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Some quantum physicists might flip that one on you.

Some might say that matter, like electrons, can't be "found" in the sense of having a specific location, without consciousness to collapse the probability wave function.

Or, to put it a more Zen way, we don't find matter without consciousness, either.

(Not that it's not "there", but we don't find it, do we?)

[Leopolds Ghost]

77. What do you mean "we", carbon-based creature?

--Tonto's Ghost

:evilgrin:

[bluedawg12]

56. WiseButAngrySara- seriously about the dog/cat

evolution. Others think it too? Very cool.

I simply observed that the cats and dogs that I have today are much more ..uh...gifted...than when I was a pup myself. They seem very attuned and talented and really quite smart. They also have a broad range of feelings. So what if they can't make tools.

E. Tolle and you and I agree. Our intellect is spiritually deficient. Our animal side, our relentless aggressiveness, the cavalier way in which we destroy nature leaves me to conclude that my species should not be insulted to share a common ancestor with some noble beast- but humbled. We really suck.

You know, I can see that consciousness is energy of sorts. Our brain is matter, but thoughts are electrically transmitted. Another model is the computer, the hardware= brain, the signals are sent electrically, but the content...ahhh..the content is the puzzle.

Are they only there because we think, therefore they exist ( sorry Descarte) or is there some place all these ideas and feelings go and reverberate like an echo? Maybe in another metaverse?

Do you know the Drake forumula, one of my favorite concepts. It is a mathematical forumula that says that there is life out there but that the more advanced a life form is the more likely it is to destroy itself. google it sometime, it's pretty fascinating.

Religion is nice in so far as it encourages humanoids to be better, bad in so far so many things ...like the Inquisition, when it is misused.

I get my connection by walking the beach, the sun through the autumn leaves, feeding my new friends, a flock of sea gulls that play and
fight and fly for bread morsels, and of course just about any creature on this good earth, except homo stupidus, my species.

peace
bluedoggy

[Leopolds Ghost]

78. Drake formula, does that say Probability of Nuclear Armageddon --> 1 ??

I remember reading that somewhere.

On Edit: The longer the human race stays in existence at anything approaching its current state of technology, the probability of Nuclear Armageddon approaches 1. The more advanced our technology becomes, the less likely we are to lose it short of some form of Armageddon. Catch 22. :scared:

"Once you let that atomic genie out if its bottle, gentlemen, there'll be no going back." --Mant!

[Leopolds Ghost]

75. Best Comment Yet

I also believe that given our hand in selecting creatures other than ourselves, and breeding them for adaptability, that domestic cats and dogs are evolving faster than we are, and in a few million years, with or with an opposable thumb, they will be smarter and faster than we are, and we will, I predict, either be their pets or their dinner.

But will they, in considering their origins, debate Human Engineering vs. Intelligent Design? ;-)

(visions of Planet of the Apes here -- hmm, Treasure Planet)

I do not believe "we" are god, however.

I thought it was the Neocons who believed that democracy was the highest form of existence because "we are god". :evilfrown:

[mondo joe]

33. Matter arises from intelligence????

Sorry - don't see it. In fact it appears to be quite the reverse.

[bluedawg12]

57. Matter gives rise to energy, which is thought and in some cases,

intelligence!

[mondo joe]

65. Actually no, matter does not give rise to energy, though it can be

converted into energy.

[ROH]

32. Logically,

although it may seem irrational at first, doesn't it follow that nothingness cannot ever have been? Doesn't it follow that there has always been something in the universe?

The only other explanation would be that nothing somehow transformed into something, but what force would have caused that transformation to take place? Whatever force it was, that force would be something, so doesn't that contradict the hypothesis of nothing being transformed into something?

[mondo joe]

34. There you go. Seems to me everything can only have always

been.

[Leopolds Ghost]

80. Not if you ascribe to the Crystalline 4th Dimension Theory. See post #67

Theory propounded by various scholars over the centuries, articulated by a mathematical genius recently ("Is Time an Illusion?")

Combine it with Epiphenomenalism and the result is some pretty interesting observations.

For instance, assuming that your conscious "self" (or "soul" if you prefer) has no super-natural influence and is just an observer (or end product), AND assuming that time is crystalline, you have no way to prove that you, your a conscious self, existed five seconds ago.

Evidence (memory) points to your mind, certainly, having existed five seconds ago, but not your conscious mind. An unconscious part of your mind, or more bizarrely still, a separate consiousness in another part of your mind, could have had those thoughts.

Witness the phenomenon of blackouts and other mind-altered states where it is not so easy to determine whether you were conscious or not based on your and other people's memory of the event.

All I'm saying is, don't be surprised if your soul winks out for eternity after reading this sentence.

"We're clearly dealing with some sort of Egyptian -- soul sucker -- of some sort." --Bubba Ho-Tep

[ROH]

36. Well...

You wrote: "Assume the 'Big Bang' Theory is correct. From what source did the matter arise from which the big bang resulted ..."

Let's call that source "A".

Next question: From what source did "A" arise? Let's call that source "B".

Next question: From what source did "B" arise? Let's call that source "C".

... and so on

Doesn't this imply that something has always existed in the universe?

[mondo joe]

40. In addition: the Big Bang was not the creation of matter - it was the

expansion of space. At least per Big Bang theory.

[bluedawg12]

59. Matter cannot be created. Can it?

So all of the energy and matter, is in a closed system that goes back and forth, matter <--->energy.

So every thing must have always been.

Looks like the universe has always existed. Shrinking and expanding endlessly. That would be funny, we are part of a big cosmic yo-yo, and our little beliefs and theories are kind of funny, seen on the large scale of things.

It's the old, who is the original originator, question.

We really know so little, and those fools that want to repress any thinking and problem solving with superstition are a danger when they try to quash critical thinking.

[Leopolds Ghost]

82. You're assuming that time is not crystalline.

If time is crystalline, then no internal source is needed. Within the confines of space-time, the Universe simply IS.

A moon traverses an orbit around a planet. Ignoring time for a moment, from what source did that moon arise?

If if space-time is curved, then it's not too big a stretch to believe it wraps in on itself. If time is bounded by its own curvature, then we can't ascribe any "special significance" to the "first cause" at the moment of origin...... any more than we would say that the Moon, a crystalline solid, was "caused" by the axis it rotates on, or that you "would not exist" were it not for the first half of your body.

Of course, the crystalline universe theory assumes that our universe contains only one outcome out of all possible outcomes generated by the initial conditions of the Big Bang.

or else, it assumes that there are a finite number of possible outcomes that exist parallel to one another along a 5th dimension "axis of probability".

[ROH]

83. Well...

WiseButAngrySara wrote: "Assume the 'Big Bang' Theory is correct. From what source did the matter arise from which the big bang resulted ..."

There may not have been a source, but if there was:
Let's call that source "A". ...

Whether or not there was a source "A", isn't there something present at this moment? If you accept that, did something arise from nothing?

[arewenotdemo]

79. Yes, the Universe is conscious!

And all consciousness is connected...the notion of discrete, unconnected consciousnesses has to be an illusion.

God = the Universe.

[bluedawg12]

30. because ignorant people must have a creation myth.

To say that life is so complex, that no living organism could form by chance is to say simply that we cannot fathom it.

But, to go on and say that everything was created in seven days, that dino's and man walked the earth together, and to ignore astro-physics that dates the age of the universe to 6 billion years and then fail to account for any evidence of human culture before 10,000 years ago is just willfull stupidity.

I have no problem if someone believes that the whole she-bang had to be started by someone, or something, OK that's faith. It can explain a deep mystery such as the origin of the universe.

But to deny scientific research that seeks to undertsand the very prinicples of nature, and then attack theories for being working theories and not proven fact, is so anti-intellectual, so thoughtless, that it just reminds my of the days when the Church insisted that the Sun revolved around God's greatest creation: >>>US!<<< Well, that was proven wrong.

As far as order, yes, the laws of thermodynamics tell us that the universe is always heading towards entropy and chaos. And, true, that for a brief moment organisms exist and display an orderly biochemical, cellular, and tissue level organization, but everyone of those constructs is hurtling towards entropy from the day it matures enough to be "born" if you will. The notion that a few organic chemicals formed into some type of ogranized blob and then split off into more of the same, and eventually over an enormous period of time that system became more and more complex does not disprove evolution, nor does it prove a divine origin.

But to interject divinty into the equation, you have to make allowances and give grace to those who interject a super-duper divine being on top of evolution. it's not evolution that strains the imagination, at least we have identified natural selection and it's means, known as genetic transmission.

What, or who has ever found any measureable evidence of a divinity in any lab?

In fact, current religious constructs claim an after life, a spirit world, how come no one that I know has ever met up with the soul of a dear departed? Other than some odd stories, likely visual or auditory hallucinations, why aren't we inundated with messages from a divine being, or or deceased spirits? We seem so ready, so willing, so desperate for something greater than ourselves.

We claim the divine is a great msytery, yet, we also claim that the same divine presence is invovled in our every day lives to the point of answerin prayers for good jobs, grades, and the rest. So which is it? A distant divinty or a hands on creator?

We have computers and radiotelescopes, and heck, even pens and pencils. So send me a message. Nada.

Back to the lab, with GATTACCA, and the double helix, and mutations and selection pressures. That at least makes sense.


Some thoughts from the good book:
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/guide.html

[Danger Duck]

35. Big bang or God, either way, it's a leap of faith.

No one can explain the orgin of matter, or God. It riddles the mind ot explain how we came to be, or how anythign came to be. If everything just is, or just was, well, is that miraculous in and of itself? In the vast spanse of space, we see infinite examples of non exsistence, vast empty space and nothinness. Can we truly imagine nothing? The human brain is not able to grasp theconcept of nothiness any more then it is able to grasp God. Either way, we must make a choice and believe in someting that cannot be defined or proven. I believe in God for a number of reasons, and I believe that it is logical to do so, and at the same time, illogical. But the problem the fundies have with the big bang is that is seems to negate the posibiility of a god, without proving the orgin of the "source material" that formed the big bang.

[mondo joe]

38. I don't know why you'd need to imagine "nothing".

But it's a mistake to believe it's an either/or proposition. One can believe in both deity and the big bang.

[Danger Duck]

46. Yes,that's called intelligent design.

[mondo joe]

47. Actually, no. Belief in deity and big bang doesn't address evolution at

all. One can believe in god and evolution and all without "intelligent design".

[Danger Duck]

48. I disagree, bur religious discussions are subjective, at best.

In my opinion, if you believe in God, he must have had some hand in evolution, being God and all. But, if you have a different point of view, please share it. I don't mean to be close minded.

[mondo joe]

49. There are as many gods as there are believers - or more, given polytheism.

But one can certainly believe in a more aloof god not involved in planning or coordinating evolution.

[Danger Duck]

53. Perhaps the flying spaghetti monster?

It seems hard to believe in a God that doesn't have a hand in creation, sort of goes against the entrie concept of God. Certainly the major religions in this hemisphere, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam acknowledge a God that crated the earth.

I think that if you're going to accept that there is no intelligence behind creation, and we're just the result of cosmic spittle that just existed for no reason, you have a pretty bleak outlook. Science and intelligent design go hand in hand. Creation theory is rather separate. However, studying the actual facts, without labeling it intelligent design, would lead someone to the same conclusion. The way we evolve, develop, and came to be suggests some power greater than our understanding. Cosmic chance is rather silly in the great scheme of things, since no science can explain the origin of matter. Not that religion can, but it acknowledges that we lack the capacity to understand certain things.

[Warren DeMontague]

92. No, science uses evidence and doesn't talk about that which can't be

verified evidentiarially or through experiment.

Religion, OTOH, starts with a pre-ordained conclusion (i.e. "God created everything") and then ignores evidence that doesn't gel with it.

And to argue that there is "no scientific way" to explain the origins of the big bang, or of matter, is again a failure of the imagination. Even though it may be difficult to devise ways to verify these theories, legitimate scientists and cosmologists are inquiring into these matters as we speak.. and doing it without having to fall back upon theological mumbo-jumbo.

Here's one example:

http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/

Lastly, to posit, incorrectly, that "science can't explain the origin of matter" validates anything, anyway, is ridiculous. Religion can't explain the origin of God, either- but somehow "he" is always exempt from the rules by which ID jihadists and Creationists make feeble attempts to discredit the scientific method.

Get it? If "but where did everything come from, if God didn't make it?" somehow discredits scientific reasoning, then "okay, where did God come from?" has to discredit religion masquerading as science, as well.


The beauty of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that there is EXACTLY the same amount of scientific evidence backing up Bobby Henderson's assertions as there is backing up the assertions of the "Discovery Institute" and the ID/Creationism crowd.

[bluedawg12]

63. ID is not about the existence of God, it is about

a literal translation of the bible.

You can believe in God, or be a Xtian,and accept the science of evolution.

You cannot do so, if you believe the bible is literal and not a work inspired by God.

[Danger Duck]

85. ID and creationism are two different things.

You seem to be referring to creationism, the creation of the planet in seven days. ID simply accounts and acknowledges a hand, plan, or scheme in the creation and evolution of the earth.

And why xtian? That's fairly offensive and obnoxious.

[Warren DeMontague]

93. Do a little more research on the "Discovery Institute"

it's pretty clear who, and what, they're shilling for.

[bluedawg12]

98. What is offensive and obnoxious about stating that:

"You can believe in God, or be a Xtian,and accept the science of evolution." ?

How is that in any way offensive?

You can be a theist i.e. believe in God, or a be Christian, and accept the science of evolution. I don't understand your reply that such a statement is obnoxious and offensive?

[bluedawg12]

60. The problem with fundys is the dogmatic adherence

to a literal text, which can also be theologically seen as inspired by a divine being, written by man, and phrased to suit the time the authors lived in.

If one accepts God's existence, and that the Book is divinely inspired but not a verbatim formula for reality, then you can accept any of science. Including the big bang. Because the big bang does not explain the start of it all, and theists would fit in and could still believe that God started it all.

For fundys it has to be in seven days, all of creation at once, and in fact no life on other planets,even. A fundy friend explained to me that there can never be life off planet because the book says creation only took place here.

So, that's the problem. Not belief in God, IMHO, but a belief in a literal text written over 5,000 years ago, that is supposed to be a scientifically sound blue print for the universe.

[Warren DeMontague]

90. There's 3 degrees of cosmic background radiation

obstensibly "left over" from the BB.

Now, it may be due to something else, but that at least is one small, theoretically consistent shred of actual, physical, scientific evidence to back up the idea of the big bang.

There is NO scientific evidence to back up the idea of "God".

[Comadreja]

37. It's too deep

[JJackFlash]

42. That sums it up very nicely

LOL

[leeroysphitz]

44. Anything so complex as to defy a simple, easy explanation

gets one anyhow with some people. It's called intelligent design.

What caused the big bang? "I don't know gOD must have done it."

Try getting your kid into med school with an exclusively Intelligent design background, and even if you could who would want to see an intelligent design qualified doctor?

[TreasonousBastard]

45. Complexity doesn't imply anything, but...

design is one possible explanation.

It is annoying that a perfectly good discussion about the origins of everything has been hijacked by a bunch of religious extremists who insist their way is the only way.

This argument about complexity boils down to the idea that random and adaptive changes do occur, but there wasn't enough time since life on Earth started for some things, like eyes, to evolve.

Well, maybe there was and maybe there wasn't, but it's still entirely hypothetical at this point and not worthy of taking sides on until and unless some new data shows up. Might as well argue that string theory is the absolute truth. Or was it a comet, volcanoes, or something else that wiped out the dinosaurs? Fascinating and necessary subjects for inquiry, but we're far from knowing what really happened any more than we know what all that dark matter out there is.

With your vase, it did not appear randomly but was designed and manufactured. It's destruction was likely far more random than its creation, and the simple fact that there are now more pieces than there were does not at all make it more complex. The pieces do, however, make it useless as a vase and would seem to be a step backward.

Personally, I neither believe in nor discount the idea of a creator, but find the universe so incredibly complex and beyond our understanding of more than just little pieces of it that the idea of intelligences that we are only slightly aware of being out there is quite attractive.

If such intelligences do indeed exist, they would almost necessarily have some effect on out tiny little world, even if unintentional. Science fiction is a bit more realistic than most religion dealing with the idea of someone in another galaxy or dimension going "Oops! I think we fucked up Earth again."

[Quixote1818]

50. If God is so great then couldn't he/she make intelligent life

out of a piece of cheese? Seems to me the fact that everything is so complex implies exactly the opposite of their logic.

[Leopolds Ghost]

67. According to certain theories, God DID make intelligent life out of CHEESE

Reverse Cause - Effect Theory: If our (partial) universe has a positive curvature and collapses in on itself (unlikely), cause and effect will be reversed. That piece of cheese will produce a cow -- intelligent life.

Crystalline 4th Dimension Theory: All moments in time exist equally and simultaneously. Thus, you will always be here, now. The physical confines of your existence are marked not just by your toes and the top of your head, but by your birth and your death. The cow that produced that piece of cheese was also produced --BY-- it, because cause and effect exist simultaneously in this world and it makes no sense to say one came before the other -- except to meet the needs of a primitive, fundamentalist humanism pre-Einsteinian enlightenment worldview that priveleges human perception, much like those colonialist maps of the world that show north as up.

Dimensional Probability Theory: All "whens" and "wheres" exist equally and simultaneously as partial universes within the multiverse. The multiverse contains all possible universes, no matter how improbable, including those in which cheese is (will? already has?) evolved into intelligent life. Unfortunately, we now know that the agents of North Central Positronics (possibly including Dick Cheney) are working tirelessly to snuff out that precious cheese. Acting Like a Pirate on a certain day of the year will counteract this, however.

Monistic Pantheism: All life is an attribute of a universal, individual, indivisible Thing. Imagine the visible 3-dimensional edge of a 4-dimensional fractal body that contains voids, etc. All change is contained and expressed within this body. If all life possesses consciousness (including rocks, albeit obviously not self-consciousness) then we are All One. Thus, the cheese is part of you, and you are part of the cheese. We are all sparks blown from the fire.

Pastafarianism: As a Christian interested in metaphysics, I give this theory no credit, but much like its namesake Rastafarianism, I suppose one could twist the facts (we are all one, there is no yesterday or tomorrow, and cause and effect are not sequential) to assert that the universe was "caused" by a pasta dinner. But perfectly ordinary theories of metaphysics, such as the ones given above, serve to explain why this interpretation should not be privileged over other interpretations.

3rd Law of Piracy: If that (partial) bodice has a positive curvature and contains a lot of rope and some sails (unlikely), escape will become improbable, rather than impossible. That piece of cheese shall produce a raft enabling you to escape -- intelligent design.

There will be no living with you after this, however.

(Also answers the question... what did he use for rope?)

[mainer]

51. Intelligent Design doesn't answer: who created GOD?

If all life as we know it was created by an intelligent being, who created the intelligent being?

[DanCa]

54. The problem I have with id design is that it's not entirely creationism

It's a prolife trojan horse to get the gop a foothold in the door in schools and head behind god. Thank of it like reganomics being taught in the class room. I believe the ultimate goal of id is to homogizine all conservative denominations, bring them under roof and thus make the liberal christian voice more obscure. See id is not just a threat to aethiest and secularist but too christainity as well. I really miss freedom to practice religion in this country.

[bluedawg12]

62. ID is not consistent with Catholic teaching

in so far as, Catholics believe that science is a matter of science and should be questioned and studied and broken apart and then re-arranged, while faith is something you can't prove or disprove and needn't try. It's matter of belief and not logic.

Agree ID is a trojan horse, a way to get what ever the fundy sects want to push as far as ideology.

I think fundys are a threat to all religions.

http://www.the-tidings.com/2004/0924/essays.htm

Fundamentalism: The real problem,
in any religion

>Fundamentalism, on the other hand, is neither necessary nor constructive. Working out of an absolutist perspective, it sees the world as filled with evil forces conspiring against everything that it regards --- with unquestioned certitude --- as true and good.

Father Arnold identified five unhealthy characteristics of religious fundamentalism in general and of Catholic fundamentalism in particular.

First, it is marked by paranoia and self-righteousness. There is always some terrible enemy out there that has to be fought and ultimately destroyed.

Fundamentalism is marked, secondly, by fear and rage directed not only against the enemy outside the ranks but even more intensely against the enemy within, including bishops, priests, sisters and theologians.

Father Arnold called this "the most revealing and dangerous characteristic" of fundamentalists because it leads them to engage in divisive activities. They spend an inordinate amount of time and energy trying to purge people, to get them fired, to destroy their reputations and, therefore, their influence.

Fundamentalists are captivated, thirdly, by the "myth of the Golden Age." They imagine that Catholicism in the decades just before Vatican II was in its pristine and ideal state, exactly as God intended it to be, without problems or deficiencies of any kind.

For the fundamentalist, fourthly, all truth is to be found in a single source. For the Muslim, it is the Koran. For the Jew, the Torah. For Protestants, the Bible. And for Catholics, the pronouncements of the pope and the Roman Curia.

Fifthly, religious fundamentalists tend to link themselves with right-wing political regimes and movements in the hope of advancing their own theocratic policies. Accordingly, Catholic fundamentalists are unenthusiastic about Catholic social teaching. They tend instead to emphasize a limited range of other issues as if they were primary.<

[porphyrian]

61. If you're too stupid to understand something, God did it. - n/t

[wtmusic]

64. Because fundie nuts can't resist the urge to anthropomorphize everything

Who else dresses up their pets and glues happy faces on their pencilholders? :shrug:

[Leopolds Ghost]

66. Sorry, the Original Poster is, in a certain sense, Incorrect.

According to the laws of thermodynamics, a smashed vase (or exploding pear, cow, etc.) is inherently less complex than an intact vase (or an intact pear, cow, etc.)

Messiness does not equal complexity...

Now, Good, mainstream theology (and mainstream Big Bang theory) asserts
that the universe is moving from order to disorder.

Emergent systems (including the creation of partial universes and other fractal phenomena, such as biological life) may appear to retard this process or reverse it, but they are in fact simply acting out the preconditions (or the probabilities inherent in the preconditions) inherent in the big bang.

Now whether you choose to associate God with the moment of creation, or (more likely if one is a physicist or theologian, to associate the moment of causation with all moments in time, equally and simultaneously) is up to you to decide.

As for me, I'm a student of architecture. :-)

[drhilarius]

81. A: Because when you see something complex...

your reaction is to understand it, not point and say "God did it."

[rman]

84. It doesn't.

Which is why its proponents don't explain it, rather they just claim it.

Their evidence amounts to "when i look around me i see the work of the hand of god - it's just so obvious".

[stepnw1f]

91. It's BULLSHIT

and their asshole charlatan con men and women know it too. Spare the feelings for those that got suckered. You'll do more of a favor by being honest and blunt about. These fools need to be snapped out of their psychosis or whatever the hell they suffer from!

[triguy46]

95. The reasoning of the simple minded and slow witted...

"I don't understand this fully, therefore its a miracle of god." Now that is not a statement that best represents an educated mind. It could just as easily be said, "I don't understand this fully, therefore its the work of ALIENS" or "...SLIME MOLD" or "...LEPRECHAUNS"

Of course we've turned a big corner with our boy santorum declaring it shouldn't be taught in science classrooms. Which way is that wind blowing, rickie??

[von Staufenberg]

97. The fallacy called "argument from ignorance"

This is a classic example of the argument from ignorance fallacy. Basically, it boils down to the simple conclusion that since we can't understand how something happens/happened, divine interaction must be assumed. I think the fallacious part of this should be self-evident.

[stevietheman]

99. When happening upon the inexplicable, it's strange...

how so many human beings tend to so easily jump from a lack of understanding into a wild assumption that a theological explanation covers it. Are they afraid, or just intellectually unable to determine or imagine the true explanations?

[DrunkenMaster]

100. It doesn't!

Of course complexity does not mandate a designer. It's faulty cause and effect.

As my great friend Dr. Paddy Ryan says, the human body is a tremendous waste of energy and remarkably inefficient. If you are positing a designer, s/he would be far from omniscient.