Intelligent Design

[numinus]

If the purpose of science is to seek truth what happens when whole avenues of research are not addressed? Of course, I mean that science does not investigate nor can it investigate supernatural.

And I agree that it should not. The need to focus on empirical data is how human bias is checked.

But people cannot forget that science is intentionally hamstrung and a lack of investigation into an area or a lack of results from those non-existent investigations cannot be used to draw conclusions.

What do you mean by 'supernatural'?

Do you consider violations of the principle of conservation of mass and energy 'supernatural'?

How about extra-terrestrial gamma rays violating einstein's postulate of constancy of the speed of light? Supernatural?

How about string theory? I mean, I could hardly imagine space-time (god knows we don't have the senses for it) but as much as 21-dimensional reality????? Supernatural?

 

[PLC1]

Of course science can answer the question of whether there is a supreme being or ID.

It need only find empirical evidence and evaluate that evidence. The fact that we have not been discussing that empirical evidence might mean that it is not open to be seen but does not mean that it cannot ever be seen.

Finding that empirical evidence is the difficult part. So far, there isn't much. Imagine what would happen if science ever did definitively prove the existence or non existence of a creator, or any intelligence greater than man's.

I suspect not much would change, as humans have a huge capacity for believing what we want to believe, regardless of facts. If the existence of god is proven, there will still be atheists. If it is disproved, there will still be theists.

 

[RoccoR]

Dr.Who, PLC1, et al,

I agree in part.

Of course science can answer the question of whether there is a supreme being or ID.

It need only find empirical evidence and evaluate that evidence. The fact that we have not been discussing that empirical evidence might mean that it is not open to be seen but does not mean that it cannot ever be seen.

(COMMENT)
This is what I mean when I say, "there is no science today that can answer the question." It doesn't mean that there won't be any means to address the question tomorrow.

Finding that empirical evidence is the difficult part. So far, there isn't much. Imagine what would happen if science ever did definitively prove the existence or non existence of a creator, or any intelligence greater than man's.
.

(COMMENT)

It is not always a matter of "finding" the imperical evidence. Sometimes it is all about recognition and comprehension.

Many of the greatest scientific minds made discoveries based on the observation of everyday occurences. Isaac Newton's laws of motion; Michael Faraday's observations on magnetism and its relationship to electric; Ernest Rutherford's descriptions on subatomic particals and rays; James Maxwell's Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism; Max Planck (black body and his famous constant), Niels Bohr (the quantum model), Marie Curie (radiation), Albert Einstein (relativity) all showed their genius in understanding the very things that are all around us, that us mere mortals failed to observe and comprehend.

Sometimes the "empirical evidence" is right there, in front of us, and we just don't recognize it. It takes the exceptional mind to see it for what it really is, what it means, and how it fits with the (very) little piece of the universe that we know.

I suspect not much would change, as humans have a huge capacity for believing what we want to believe, regardless of facts. If the existence of god is proven, there will still be atheists. If it is disproved, there will still be theists.

(COMMENT)

Of course, there will always those, that cannot keep up with the beat. My own daughter often tells me: "Oh Dad, you're so pre-Color TV!" But as time goes on, the revelation of the discoveries will become increasing more appreciated. We cannot imagine (yet) how it might change humanity, but if we every did discover empirical evidence of the SB or a intelligence beyond our own, it would no go without an impact.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hobo1]

Hello, just seeing what everyone's thoughts are on intelligent design. Intelligent design is the idea that life and the universe were created by a highly sophisticated entity known as the intelligent designer, or intelligent agent. This intelligent designer then created the universe to it's own specifications and created life in it. It's a non-religious view on creationism and the origins of man, as opposed to evolution and natural selection. What are your thoughts on intelligent design?

More Info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

The way "intelligent design" is presented, it appears to be an alternative explanation for what most people call God. Personally, I can see empirical evidence that a great deal of order exists in the universe. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west every day.

I can see nature acting capriciously by allowing things to get out of balance - such as a swarm of killer bees that suddenly get out of control. But inevitably, some other force of nature counter-balances that abnormality and brings the system back into balance again. So, we do have some empirical evidence of a "invisible guiding hand". But that is far different from the definition given for "intelligent design" tries to offer an alternative explanation to things like evolution.

If there an "invisible guiding hand" that establishes order, one may logically argue that order = intelligence. But intelligence does not equal God or even a secular substitute; especially a personal God or a "sky God" that controls human lives. A phenomenon like evolution is just a good method that a guiding hand would use to make orderly changes. Evolution is really a very orderly process and shouldn't conflict with someone's belief in God, except if your belief in God is based on a fundamental adherence to the factual accuracy of the Bible, Koran, and other old religious books.

Physics, particularly cosmology and research on sub-atomic phenomenon, seems to be moving rapidly. Yet a lot remains to be explained and discovered. Scientists still cannot explain gravity - so we have a long way to go. Scientists like Einstein and Hawkins had a goal to write the definitive book on the "Theory of Everything". In retrospect, it looks like they may have only written the first chapter or two.

I think it is likely that when the final "Theory of Everything" is written, that some still unimaginable thing will show up that maintains order in the universe. Then we can perhaps finally put a name on whatever that "thing" is.

 

[PLC1]

It is not always a matter of "finding" the imperical evidence. Sometimes it is all about recognition and comprehension.

Many of the greatest scientific minds made discoveries based on the observation of everyday occurences. Isaac Newton's laws of motion; Michael Faraday's observations on magnetism and its relationship to electric; Ernest Rutherford's descriptions on subatomic particals and rays; James Maxwell's Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism; Max Planck (black body and his famous constant), Niels Bohr (the quantum model), Marie Curie (radiation), Albert Einstein (relativity) all showed their genius in understanding the very things that are all around us, that us mere mortals failed to observe and comprehend.



Sometimes the "empirical evidence" is right there, in front of us, and we just don't recognize it. It takes the exceptional mind to see it for what it really is, what it means, and how it fits with the (very) little piece of the universe that we know.

Good point. It's perhaps more a matter of recognizing the evidence than it is finding it. So far, no one has recognized the empirical evidence proving or disproving the idea of god. Will they? Does such evidence even exist? No one really knows.

Of course, there will always those, that cannot keep up with the beat. My own daughter often tells me: "Oh Dad, you're so pre-Color TV!" But as time goes on, the revelation of the discoveries will become increasing more appreciated. We cannot imagine (yet) how it might change humanity, but if we every did discover empirical evidence of the SB or a intelligence beyond our own, it would no go without an impact.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, people do generally accept the evidence that the Earth is not the center of the universe. It took a few years. Probably most people accept the evidence for evolution. That discovery only goes back a century and a half, so not everyone is on board with that idea yet. Sure, eventually people do accept scientific discoveries. It does take a while sometimes.

The existence or non existence of god would be one that would take us a long, long time to accept. No matter what was discovered, it would go against deeply held belief systems, and those don't change in a generation or two. It could take millennia.

 

[Dr.Who]

Well, people do generally accept the evidence that the Earth is not the center of the universe. It took a few years. Probably most people accept the evidence for evolution. That discovery only goes back a century and a half, so not everyone is on board with that idea yet. Sure, eventually people do accept scientific discoveries. It does take a while sometimes.

I imagine it took a long time for most people to accept the truth of Euclidean geometry (300BC). And it was accepted as an absolute truth for a long time until Einstein (1900's) showed that it is nearly close to working but just not quite.

In other words 1+1=2 for all practical purposes but the distance from here to the end of the galaxy plus the distance from here to the end of the galaxy does not equal twice the distance from here to the end of the galaxy.

http://www.lycos.com/info/non-euclidean-geometry--albert-einstein.html

 

[Dr.Who]

What do you mean by 'supernatural'?

Do you consider violations of the principle of conservation of mass and energy 'supernatural'?

How about extra-terrestrial gamma rays violating einstein's postulate of constancy of the speed of light? Supernatural?

How about string theory? I mean, I could hardly imagine space-time (god knows we don't have the senses for it) but as much as 21-dimensional reality????? Supernatural?

I don't know. Violations might just mean that we need to fine tune our understanding. Or it might be that we are seeing evidence for the supernatural.

Then if we ever did see an empirical observation of the supernatural would it still be supernatural or would our empirically seeing it make it natural?

God is widely postulated to be supernatural, when he appears to people incarnate is He still supernatural?

 

[Dr.Who]

I suspect not much would change, as humans have a huge capacity for believing what we want to believe, regardless of facts. If the existence of god is proven, there will still be atheists. If it is disproved, there will still be theists.

Yep.

I am quite sure there are people who believe that the big bang is an example of the universe being created from nothing in violation of the laws of physics yet they do not believe in the supernatural. If that is what the big bang is then causation would insist that something other than what is natural caused it.

Einstein was convinced that there was a creator (of some kind) when he first saw the evidence for the big bang. At least he was consistent in following the evidence.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/universe.html

 

[PLC1]

Yep.

I am quite sure there are people who believe that the big bang is an example of the universe being created from nothing in violation of the laws of physics yet they do not believe in the supernatural. If that is what the big bang is then causation would insist that something other than what is natural caused it.

Einstein was convinced that there was a creator (of some kind) when he first saw the evidence for the big bang. At least he was consistent in following the evidence.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/universe.html

The "big bang" does sound a lot like "Let there be light" to me. I don't pretend to understand the idea, or how all of the matter of the universe could have been concentrated in an infinitely small space.

 

[numinus]

I don't know. Violations might just mean that we need to fine tune our understanding. Or it might be that we are seeing evidence for the supernatural.

Then if we ever did see an empirical observation of the supernatural would it still be supernatural or would our empirically seeing it make it natural?

God is widely postulated to be supernatural, when he appears to people incarnate is He still supernatural?

Exactly!

Its like exploring a very large and very dark room using only a candle capable of illuminating a very small part of the room. We see a chair on on part of the room and we assert that it is a room full of chairs. That it may be populated with tables, desk lamps and beds does not occur to us (after all, it is not part of that empirical method our small candle is capable of).

You are way ahead of me, doctor.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Apologies for the thread necromancy but I felt this was a worthwhile topic.

Of course science can answer the question of whether there is a supreme being or ID.

It need only find empirical evidence and evaluate that evidence. The fact that we have not been discussing that empirical evidence might mean that it is not open to be seen but does not mean that it cannot ever be seen.

Empirical evidence of a phenomenon that, if it exists, must necessarily exist outside of space and time? That's rather silly.

There are plenty of things we know to be true which we cannot confirm via the scientific method. Euclid's axioms are a good example. Science at the end of the day is confined purely with analyzing material phenomena and the laws that govern them: it cannot be used, should not be used, and to my knowledge no one respectable has ever claimed it could be used to answer questions of metaphysical importance.

Rather, those questions will have to be answered using metaphysical methodology -- e.g., philosophy. And insofar as others have already thought to ask them, we have some pretty compelling proofs of the existence of God.

FWIW, I regard intelligent design as foolish insofar as it concedes too much ground to materialists (which is why probably why atheists spend so much time talking about it). It is essentially a probabilistic argument for the existence of God assuming a mechanistic universe. There are much sounder arguments that are neither materialistic or probabilistic.

 

[Hobo1]

FWIW, I regard intelligent design as foolish insofar as it concedes too much ground to materialists (which is why probably why atheists spend so much time talking about it). It is essentially a probabilistic argument for the existence of God assuming a mechanistic universe. There are much sounder arguments that are neither materialistic or probabilistic.

If you can tell me with some degree of precision that capabilities that the "true God" possesses, then I can either prove your definition too limited, or simply prove that no God exists. Generally, in philosophical discussion, people speak of God as possessing certain mystical or metaphysical powers. These powers are beyond basic human understanding to comprehend, or beyond our science to explain. The Big Bang and existence of gravity are two great examples. Are these scientific issues evidence proof of the existence or non-existence of God? That's debatable.

On a whole different plane if thought is the concepts found in religion. Is God the keeper of moral and proper activities which for mankind? Do these ancient books which speak (generally) of morals and mores, have some special attachment to the ultimate source of divine knowledge?

I which I could be convinced that religion has some unbreakable lock with the Divinity. Then I could march into battle for a heavenly cause. As it is, I am stuck with Kant and his Critique of Pure Reason (which says, use your brain, stupid)

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

If you can tell me with some degree of precision that capabilities that the "true God" possesses, then I can either prove your definition too limited, or simply prove that no God exists. Generally, in philosophical discussion, people speak of God as possessing certain mystical or metaphysical powers. These powers are beyond basic human understanding to comprehend, or beyond our science to explain. The Big Bang and existence of gravity are two great examples. Are these scientific issues evidence proof of the existence or non-existence of God? That's debatable.

On a whole different plane if thought is the concepts found in religion. Is God the keeper of moral and proper activities which for mankind? Do these ancient books which speak (generally) of morals and mores, have some special attachment to the ultimate source of divine knowledge?

I which I could be convinced that religion has some unbreakable lock with the Divinity. Then I could march into battle for a heavenly cause. As it is, I am stuck with Kant and his Critique of Pure Reason (which says, use your brain, stupid)

The Unmoved Mover argument (for which I've never heard a good rebuttal) suggests that the Big Bang, law of gravitation, etc., do not refute God's existence. Everything which changes, after all, must have its potential actualized by something acting outside of itself -- and this chain of actions must conclude, logically, in a being which cannot be actualized but is pure being itself. (As Aquinas would say, "And this we call God.")

You might benefit from a reading of Aquinas if you are interested in the metaphysical arguments for God's existence. It's very heavy, though; newbies to the field of metaphysics would do better to read an introductory text, such as Edward Feser's "The Last Superstition."

 

[Apathy]

1)The Unmoved Mover argument (for which I've never heard a good rebuttal) 2)suggests that the Big Bang, law of gravitation, etc., do not refute God's existence. 3)Everything which changes, after all, must have its potential actualized by something acting outside of itself -- 4)and this chain of actions must conclude, logically, in a being which cannot be actualized but is pure being itself. (As Aquinas would say, "And this we call God.")

5)You might benefit from a reading of Aquinas if you are interested in the metaphysical arguments for God's existence. It's very heavy, though; newbies to the field of metaphysics would do better to read an introductory text, such as Edward Feser's "The Last Superstition."

1) The unmoved mover does not need to be a deity.

2) It is not our job to refute the claim the burden of proof is on the claimant.

3) No

4) The premise was false and the conclusion was likewise false.

5) Thomas had his conclusion lead his logic and not his logic leading him to his conclusion. This led to faulty reasoning and rubbish philosophy, Aquinas was merely a mouthpiece for the Catholic church.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

1) The unmoved mover does not need to be a deity.

It must by necessity be a being. And that being must of necessity be all-powerful, since it must have the ability to actualize the potential of anything that is. "And this we call God."

2) It is not our job to refute the claim the burden of proof is on the claimant.

By contrast, the argument is a demonstration of proof -- it having been made, it is incumbent on those who disagree with it to demonstrate either that the premise is false or that conclusion does not follow logically from it.

3) No

That is an assertion, not an argument.

4) The premise was false and the conclusion was likewise false.

Again, that is an assertion, not an argument.

5) Thomas had his conclusion lead his logic and not his logic leading him to his conclusion. This led to faulty reasoning and rubbish philosophy, Aquinas was merely a mouthpiece for the Catholic church.

Once again, that is an assertion, not an argument.