qrcode

Saturday, December 03, 2005

A Note on Intelligent Design

A few days back I saw a show on Sir Issac Newton on the High Definition broadcast by my local public television system that afforded an ironic picture of what a substantive theory of Intelligent Design might be. Newton, the quintessential empirical scientist did believe in God. On the web I found an article on Newton and Socinianism in which Newton is quoted as saying:
“This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”[i] The final line of the theological portion of the General Scholium concludes: “And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy”.[ii]
What we have here is an intellectually responsible theory of Intelligent Design -- it is a part of Natural Philosophy, which is to say, a part of physics, chemistry, biology, and the rest. Thus, according to Newton, Intelligent Design is not an alternative to science, it is what science is about.

Of course, Creationists and advocates of the irresponsible theory of Intelligent Design are so wedded to their neurotic view of what the Bible "means" that they cannot accept this view since they are wedded to the thesis that the world we live on is only a few thousand years old, some 6 to 10 thousand years (which is unlike most elements of Intelligent design refutable and has in fact been refuted), and that humans were posited on the earth in all their glory, replete with speech no less, which is at variance with Newton's insistence that Natural Philosophy be restricted to hypotheses that are subject to verification through replicatable experimentation. The thesis that humans were plopped onto Earth full grown and speaking some language -- Aramaic? -- falls in the realm of magic or mysticism or some other similar domain.

The current issue of The New Yorker, has a very nice report on the trial of Kitzmiller v. The Dover. Over the period of several weeks the advocates of Intelligent Design, especially Michael Behe, took a terrible drubbing. The on line issue of the Magazine has a related interview with Margaret Talbot, who wrote the New Yorker article which you may want to read. Among other things, the pseudo-theory of Intelligent Design was revealed to ignore virtually all of science, choosing to focus entirely on biology, including especially their favorite whipping boy, Darwin. I invite you to read this article. In the trial, the main advocates of ID were subject to rigorous crossexamination representing the first such case in American history.

The Dover school board had ordered a short statement be read mentioning Intelligent Design as an alternative to the theory of Evolution before the section on Evolution and this was what prompted the trial. The judge will give his ruling in January. The voters in the Dover school district have already given their verdict, ousting all Eight Republicans who supported the statement on ID and replacing them with Democrats who opposed them. I am betting the judge will take a similar view.


[i]Newton, The mathematical principles of natural philosophy by Sir Isaac Newton: translated into English by Andrew Motte, 1729, 2 vols., reprinted with an introduction by I. Bernard Cohen (London: Dawsons, 1968), vol. 2, p. 388. For this and the next quotation from the Principia, I use the familiar wording of the Motte translation. Afterwards I employ the modern translation of I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman.

[ii]Newton, Mathematical principles, pp. 391-2. This reading is based on the third edition of 1726, which substituted “natural” for the word “experimental” in the second edition of 1713, thus broadening the claim.

,

Tweet This!

47 Comments:

Blogger J_G said...

LG, Every time I hear someone refer back to scientists and philosophers of the past I sit up and listen. I do this because I understand that some of those men and women were much more adept at understanding their surroundings because there were fewer distractions such as sitting in front of a boob tube wasting the day away. In times past they actually had to use their minds in order to survive and flourish.

One of my favorite astute observers of life, Benjamin Franklin had this to say about knowledge and understanding:

"Like a man traveling in foggy weather, those at some distance before him on the road he sees wrapped up in the fog, as well as those behind him, and also the people in the fields on each side, but near him all appears clear, though in truth he is as much in the fog as any of them."

I agree with his observation and I will listen to and evaluate for myself whether those things said make any sense. I understand that many things written have to be taken literally or allegorically. This is where the problem lies to understanding. I think all can agree that when the Ten Commandments implores the men; “Do not covet thy neighbor’s wife” we can safely assume that is exactly what is meant. However, when the readings say “God created the Heavens and Earth in seven days” well, given the scientific evidence that has been accumulated I would have to say this is symbolic rather than literal. That’s why I will refer back to what my mentor Benny F had to say. (Benjamin Franklin is somewhat of a celebrity here in Philadelphia) You just have to judge for yourself because in reality who else do you have to make that judgment?

In the case of ID in Delaware, I have to admit that the state of Delaware is in a political category all by itself. A few years ago I was involved with groups that wanted to pass a bill that would extend nondiscrimination laws to include Gays, Lesbians, Bisexual and Transgender people. It was the Democrats in their Senate that sunk House Bill 99 and left the Republicans saying it was unfair to not let the bill out onto the floor for a vote. A majority of Republicans would have voted for the bill and a majority of Democrats would have voted against it but the Democrats would not let it out of committee to be voted upon. There you have it.

12:35 PM

 
Blogger L>T said...

I would have to say not only what the bible 'means', but what does God mean? Ultimately God can only mean one thing, right? I mean God can be dressed in all diff. perceptions, but can only be God.
So, what is God? If we say who is God, do we make him a man?

10:27 PM

 
Blogger J_G said...

It was written "God created man in his own image" Does that mean God created man to have the same physical appearance? Was Adam short, tall, fat, skinny or muscular? Is that what God looks like? That could be symbolic or maybe it was literal, was it? It was also written that "Eve was created from one of Adams ribs". Does that make you wonder if that was meant to be literal or symbolic? These questions have been asked since they were told or read. Somehow I can’t imagine being on an Arc for forty days and forty nights with a pair of Peacocks, how could anyone get any sleep? Did the words written mean only the world that Noah lived in was to be flooded or was it the entire planet? Where did all the water go? I guess Noah could have used GPS and the National Weather Service to find the answer to that question. It sure keeps a person busy thinin about those questions if you have a mind to.

Who the heck determines what intelligence is anyway. When I served in the Navy, the sailors I served with questioned whether there could ever be such a thing as "Naval Intelligence". Now there's a real tricky word there LG, "intelligence". I hear it get tossed around a lot but what does it really mean?

Does having the capacity to learn something intelligence or is having the ability to apply what you have learned being intelligent. Maybe not telling anyone you learned anything at all is using your intelligence. There certainly had to be intelligence involved when they designed a nuclear weapon or maybe not.

I used to listen to the Sunday morning talk shows but I stopped doing that because I determined there wasn’t much intelligent discussion going on there. Is intelligence subjective or actual?

Delaware politics still baffle me though. Liberal Republicans in the north and Conservative Democrats in the south. That’s very confusing.

5:31 AM

 
Blogger Mr K said...

I always find that up there with the most amusing parts of the bible (and I really don't know how the literalists can take themselves seriousy). Why DID God take Adam's rib? I mean he quite happily made Adam without needing such raw materials. Also, as God creaed man in his own image, does God have an extra rib? Seriously though, if you were God, and you were all powerful... would you really want to look like man? It beggars the question, how well hung is God?

The sad thing about intelligent design is that we have to take it seriously rather than just laughing....

8:02 AM

 
Blogger L>T said...

I wonder if philosophically we would have to agree w/an intelligent design. That is what Newton was saying, right?
No matter what God is consisted of. The true concept of God is; God is the top of the list, the beginning of everything, the perfect. (I am refraning from using he or being) The intelligence.
With all respect, I do not know if God 'made man in his image' but i suspect 'man' made God in his.

10:51 AM

 
Blogger J_G said...

"Seriously though, if you were God, and you were all powerful... would you really want to look like man? It beggars the question, how well hung is God?"

Hopefully I beg you will never have to find out.

3:35 PM

 
Blogger S.R. Deardorff said...

I think God stepped out of existence after He created it and, knowing that we'd have this convo some day, blew his head off in the nether-realm so that nobody could ever blame Him if the whole thing went down...

peace n whatnot,

sean

11:04 PM

 
Blogger S.R. Deardorff said...

excuse me...


after IT created it.

11:05 PM

 
Blogger J_G said...

This really drives the anti-God crowd berserk; it’s called “Predestination”. Did you know that just as the hairs on your head are numbered, so are the days of your life? When God created you he knew from the second you were conceived, what color your hair would be (thanks God, guys love my red hair), what you would be doing for a living and how many children you would have if any. Of course you can’t change a thing because it’s already been predetermined. That theory and way of thinking completely drives the anti-Gods totally nuts.

I’m not certain about not being free to change things but like I said before, I don’t claim to know all things big and small and I’m sorting through the different parts of my faith. I don’t need to cloak my faith with fancy names like “Intelligent Design”. That kind of stuff is for children and beginners. If you’re really interested in what I believe than go read the Apostle’s creed. That sums it up very well. I know where it came from and how it came about so nobody needs to tell me this or that just understand that’s what I believe, plain and simple. If you don’t agree with it, fine, believe in what you want to believe in. I have a good friend who is a “witch” and calls me “the Christian”, I laugh, we laugh and we go about just being friends. You may not follow God but even my friend the “wicken” will tell you the world is full of spirituality. I’ve invited her to my Lutheran Church but so far she has declined. I’m not going to force it on her but if she decides to do some expanding of her horizons I’ll be there to show her my faith. I am already quite familiar with hers.


According to the Constitution of the United States

“Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.”

As you and anyone else can plainly see there is nothing that says anything about the separation of “church and state” mentioned in the Constitution. All that it says is the Congress shall pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion period. It also says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The separation of church and state language became “popular” after a 1947 Supreme Court decision called “Emerson vs. Board of Education” (although that language had been used from time to before that decision).

I believe though that churches violate their tax exempt status when they Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Al Gore and other come into their church to deliver political messages. I have told my pastor that if we want to get involved in political issues that our church should drop the tax exempt status so we can campaign freely for whoever we want. My pastor doesn’t think we need to get involved politically because we have enough to do helping the poor in our town and evangelizing. I agree for now, but I keep my eyes open for potential problems arising from laws made to hamper our charity operations. We actually feed the poor and hungry and ask nothing in return. Helping the less fortunate is it's own reward.

Sean, All that needs to be said is "God did this or God did that" adding a gender identifying pronoun is not really needed. Trust me, that will get you identified :-)

9:13 AM

 
Blogger J_G said...

I did it too without even noticing it.

"When God created you he knew from the second you were conceived, what color your hair would be".

That's funny :-)

9:24 AM

 
Blogger L>T said...

j_g, In our culture it is hard not to do.
My fanatic holy-roller mother always pulled predestination crap on me from the time i was a small child. It didn't take me long to understand it was a excuse for not taking responsibility in her life or her family's.
Sorry L. Guy I don't have the time or the brain power to read the Newton stuff.
But, from what little I've read, I think he was really trying to work it out, with of course his own bias.
It is up to future generations to sort out whats relevent, eh?
As you so valiantly attempt to do, Bravo! ( & get us cretins [new fav. word] to do)

10:33 AM

 
Blogger S.R. Deardorff said...

as i've stated on earlier posts, i'm agnostic, i don't know whether or not god exists...do i believe god exists? in a way, yes; in a way, no.

i went to catholic schools, bible study, the whole nine-yards and whatnot, and believe i take away a more realistic and practical view of religious tenets than most "religious" people do...

i do not believe in hell

i do not believe in heaven - at least the way most people believe there is hell and heaven.

i do believe jesus existed

i do believe that jesus existed to teach people that they could very well create heaven on earth and, for all practical purposes, achieve redemption through love and forgiveness...

my philosophy is one of many philosophies intertwined...

the more complex the pattern appears to be, the more simple the solution:

the solution:

love and forgiveness

the pattern:

all of mankind phucking up the inherently "good" thing called god...

by the laws of logic, we must admit that we may have god's name wrong, we must admit that we will never KNOW whether or not god exists--and, for a believer, this should only serve as motivation to forgive unbelievers for their transgressions, as true to their religious doctrine's commands--this shouldn't be a problem, but it is...

surely, even if spirit is nothing but the feelings and emotions associated with life, humans have a spirit that needs to be developed...

developing that spirit can happen through any number of avenues with or without religious church attendance...

however, we don't let it happen--we damn people and punish people so much that they have to sacrifice spiritual progression for the sake of survival....unless, well, unless that person is like me, they usually resort to less than perfect measures to do so...

i can tell you if shit hit the fan and i no longer had people willing to help me survive-i'd hit the road with a backpack, some clothes, forty notebooks and a hundred pens--start walkin, sleepin whereever i can, under a bridge, on the beach---and, i'd have no problem stealing my food---and, i'd get away with it...i'd steal my way to survival until i found another "good" soul willing to help me up and be self sufficient; and, i'd write about it along the way...if i had to, i'd steal for survival for the rest of my life and probably commit suicide around 60 or so...but, i don't see that scenario unfolding, thankfully...

my points:

1. the two things which are the basis for christian tenets are love of god and love of neighbor: simply, love and forgiveness

2. love and forgiveness will cause, naturally, people to gravitate more and more towards "good" behavior

3. most christians prefer to punish, damn, and claim self righteousness rather than to love and forgive a sinner; thus causing the turmoil they are constantly fighting against...

4. science backs up the idea, in psychology, that positive reinforcement is the best, not the quickest, but the best way to mold behavior--it also tells us that we have far too many negative consequences with negative reinforcement for it to be effective; thus, we again see examples of a society lacking love and forgiveness in the drug war--drug users turn to drugs, mostly, because their environments lack love and forgiveness; instead of giving them what they lack, we give them more hell, more reason to turn to the physical pleasure to escape the harsh world they've been placed in...

5. the belief regarding god as creator of all is a topic which belongs to philisophical and theological discussion, not one which belongs under the category which observes concrete things and reports concrete conclusions...

6. if we would focus more on actually learning these things as opposed to focusing on our own self-righteousness...well, i hate to sound redundant, but, we might actually learn something.


peace n whatnot,

sean

11:51 AM

 
Blogger S.R. Deardorff said...

i'm a sea turd floating in the sea bowl

i'm a sea turd floating in the sea

i'm a sea turd floating in the sea bowl

i'm a sea turd floating in the sea...




sorry,

i thought it was funny,

sean

11:55 AM

 
Blogger J_G said...

I stood upon a high place,
And saw, below, many devils
Running, leaping,
and carousing in sin.
One looked up, grinning,
And said, "Comrade! Brother!"

Stephen Crane

People search for the meaning of life but I have seen that there are many ways and meanings to behold.

10:07 AM

 
Blogger S.R. Deardorff said...

j_g...i think we've made a breakthrough...perhaps, or, so it seems, we see eye to eye on something,

"My Comrade! My Sister!!"


peace n whatnot,

sean

1:33 PM

 
Blogger Mr K said...

Heh, I'm an atheist and I believe in pre-determination. Just there was no guiding intelligence to determine it. I sort of agree with Einstein in his nice picture of a deterministic universe. Quantum theory lies!

5:17 PM

 
Blogger J_G said...

I read a lot of History and if my memory serves me correctly I believe Leonardo was censured by the Roman Church and forbidden by the Pope to use human cadavers for scientific study. There were many instances of this happening to men of science (I call them astute observers of life)over the years because men like Leonardo da Vinci, Sir Isaac Newton, and many more were observing and recording what they saw and believed they understood. Not every theory they espoused was completely correct but they led to more study and investigation. Sir Isaac Newton though possessed a deep religious sense, venerated the Bible and accepted its account of creation. In late editions of his scientific works he expressed a strong sense of God's providential role in nature.

The Christian Church is no longer ruled from Rome. There are many different varieties of the Christian Church now because of the Roman Church’s intolerance to ideas not espoused by it. The world has come a long way since the Age of Enlightenment, The Renaissance, Protestantism, Martin Luther and Calvin just to name a few advances away from the hegemony of Roman Church.

It is however still true today that truth, understanding and knowledge are not at the forefront of the teachings by the many different religions of Man. I’m not going to write all the disputes I have with some of those teachings but suffice it to say there are many. I can only say that with every day that passes I learn something new but my faith remains. I believe in being honest with myself and others and this incredibly named theory “Intelligent Design” is nothing more than being dishonest about believing and teaching Judeo-Christian principles. Education and knowledge should be part of our public school systems but dishonesty is something that should not be tolerated. Say what you believe and believe what you say. This is pretty simple reasoning but very difficult in practical application for some.

10:21 AM

 
Blogger The Sadistic Gardener said...

Hey, LG, I saw this (completely unrelated to this post)blog entry that you might enjoy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-chanin/-_b_11866.html

I looked for an email address for you, but decided to post here after I couldn't find one quickly.

3:56 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are several inaccuracies in your opening monologue. Your association of ID with "the Bible" is either the result of a deliberate intent to mislead readers or you are misinformed.

I am not aware of any scientist who is both supportive of ID and holds the view that the earth is "some 6 to 10 thousand years" old, please let me know who in particular is making this claim?

Having just read Stepen Meyers detailed (and peer reveiwed incidentally) analysis of the Cambrian Explosion and having been in touch with Richard Dawkins about some of the issues it raises, I can assure you that ID is at least as scientific as Darwinsim.

Your monologue indicates that you have very limited knowledge of the scientific debate, since you make no referecne to some of the very serious evidence based objections that are being raised by proponents of ID, many of whom are practising professors of very relevant subjects.

Unless you read some of what these scientists are writing then you will not understand the issues, and if you do read them please do let me know what errors they are making in their analysis?

Stephen Meyers essay on the Cambrain Explosion is impressive and Dawkins rather luke-warm response was very revealing too.

I suggest you read and then report back to us all so that we may benefit from your erudition.

Here is Meyers essay, it is a scientific paper:

http://www.discovery.org/articlefiles/pdfs/cambrian.pdf

Regards

Hugh

4:43 PM

 
Blogger S.R. Deardorff said...

thanks for the advice hugh...know, with certainty, i will never read another one of your suggested pieces again...that's twice now that you've pointed me to long works that are nothing more than complex attempts to manipulate language in order to support what is obviously an attempt to work God into science...

the article isn't science, it states what is already observed; it makes no real speculation as regards causation that is actually backed up by evidence, it is backed only by a lack of evidence and highly intelligent people whining that nobody investigates the possibility that God did it...

of course, because you're in the rhetoric business, i'm sure that you'll reply with something terse like, "nowhere is the word God mentioned." lose the pomp, please. the flaw in the analysis lies in the word usage; it doesn't take a scientist to quickly rebut all 50 pages by simply pointing out a few logical corrections in reasoning...

first, we'll assume that there was an "intelligent" designer of every thing, for the sake of argument...and that the designer had to be the first thing...

the term intelligent implies that the designer has acquired a comparitively large amount of knowledge;

correct me if i'm wrong, but it appears that proponents of ID are implying that the designer has ALL knowledge (information); this seems like a logical deduction since it is claimed that this intelligent designer had perfectly planned all that we see/observe, in or out of the realm of scientific endeavors...

i'm fine with that...okay...let's assume the designer has infinite knowledge which is sufficient to set in place the, as the article puts it, sharing of the designer's infinite knowledge and subsequent creation of every thing through and beyond today...

what was the receiver? in other words, there was a designer who originated this information, but the fact, or case, as it were, of information requires that there be a sender and a receiver...

there had to be some other thing, besides the designer, from which the designer created every thing...unless....unless the designer created every thing ONLY in the designer's mind, or, the other logical acceptable assumption regarding how a designer could have set forth this never ending flow of things is that the designer contained the knowledge of all things AND the necessary bits of information to EVOLVE existence WITHIN the designer's self so that we can only deduce that every things IS the designer itself...

either we are the designer's imagination....or....

we are mere parts of the designer's being....

the other great fault of the whole thing is the assumption that the choice to create existence is an "intelligent" choice...

imagine what reaction we'd have if science one day figures all of existence out, and comes to us to proclaim,

"we've examined all evidence in existence, and we are nothing but a figment of another being's imagination; but, hell, what a great story!"

or,

"we've examined all the evidence in existence, and all things are merely parts of one huge intelligent being, like a human within a human..."

the fault of the theory is that it's not a theory at all, it's a long winded conclusion....

if it were a theory, it would postulate HOW this intelligent designer put these things into existence....but, hell, why do that when you can just throw a bunch of non-sensical, illogical phrases together and claim validity because nobody can prove you wrong....cute, real cute, are ya' lookin' for a cookie or some type of divine authority?

what's your ulterior motive here? enlighten us, please.

peace n whatnot,

sean

9:28 PM

 
Blogger Mr K said...

"Having just read Stepen Meyers detailed (and peer reveiwed incidentally) analysis of the Cambrian Explosion and having been in touch with Richard Dawkins about some of the issues it raises, I can assure you that ID is at least as scientific as Darwinsim."

Hehe.... Do you actually take yourself seriously? Seriously.... intelligent design... I'd actually written an argument rebuking intelligent design, but I think it's time we just started laughing at your "theory"

8:17 AM

 
Blogger J_G said...

Well Mr K,
We all could use a good laugh so let's hear your theory. I guess yours is just as valid as anyone else's I suppose. I'm a little leary though, if you start talking about being some kind of bacteria or monkey at some stage of your development then I'll just have to go into the other room because my sides start hurting when I laugh too hard.

You said you are studying math. Well then young man cipher us up an equation that might give us an inkling on the possibilties that the people and this earth are a just a random co-inky-dense.

We've already covered how science cannot prove the theory of evolution because you cannot duplicate the results. So there you have it then, science cannot possibly prove either evolution or creation. I have no scientific evidence that there is a God and you, what evidence do you have to prove your theory that I can't easily disprove with one or two sentences or the blink of an eye? I bet you don't believe in Santa Claus either.

He He! come into my den said the ...

9:46 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First let me deal briefly with the rather foolish Deardorrf. Despite his lengthy post he chooses not to address anything specific from Meyers paper, clearly there is something he dissaproves of but he won't actually state which specific statements of Meyer's he takes issue with.

Similarly with mrk, an unwillingness or perhaps inability to actually read the essay and then let us all know what is at fault.

Only a fool critcizes or condemns something before he has read it, too many of you have your own view of what ID is and this blinds you to the real scientfic issues that are the subject of heated controversy.

Finally yes I do take myself seriously, but I do not take you very seriously, if all you can do is ramble and sidestep my challenges then fine, I dont really care.

5:50 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd like to add one more thing, in any really valuable debate or pubic disagreement, it really does help to read, study and understand the opponents position.

Unless you know their position, the things they hold to be true etc, then you can only do what you two did, ramble.

This is a shame.

Hugh

5:53 PM

 
Blogger J_G said...

I have to admit Hugh, I am not up on the specifics of the ID theory and how it is presented other than what I have gathered from listening to a Christian friend of mine discuss the theory with some of the people at work. I had better go do more investigation as you rightly point out before I make any more commentary on it.

You know full well my position on God and creation because I make it quite clear where I stand. I guess that is my beef with the ID theory as I've pointed out, God and creation are just as viable a theory as any and faith is what ultimately determines what a person believes. Children in school should be made aware of all theories in order for them to be properly educated.

Science as it is defined means the study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment. Does evolution meet the requirements for being classified as science in that instance? Science also means something studied or performed methodically: any activity that is the object of careful study or that is carried out according to a developed method. Does ID meet the requirements to be defined as science in either of these instances?

Let me put this to the mathematician. I am sitting here at my desk. I have two good size rocks. I also have a desk lamp and I can turn it off or on. If I take those two rocks and smash them together in front of my desk lamp and then turn the lamp on and maybe come back in a day or even seven days and examine my work (experiment) with a powerful microscope. What are the chances of me finding a fully developed race of people complete with a set of ideals on how they got there? The chances are pretty slim huh? Slim, I don’t think the word slim would be quite up to that job of describing those chances. I’m sure some genius mathematician out there would be willing to take on the mind boggling work it would take to come up with that statistic. What do think?

6:44 PM

 
Blogger S.R. Deardorff said...

hugh...you're obviously a bitter old man who simply can't let go of his perceived greatness, can't reconcile the truth of his mortality and imperfect nature...

you obviously didn't understand anything that was written...

i read your article, just like i read the last one you recommended about a month and a half ago or so....

you've never really offered anything in the form of constructive discussion here, nothing new or unique, you've come in and advertised some opinion that you've adopted (which is never your own)---and you claim that anyone who disagrees is foolish or ignorant and then demand that in order to prove you "wrong" someone must submit some academic paper...

i fathom to guess that no amount of academic study could ever sway you to promote any idea OTHER than Intelligent Design...

my previous post was written in ten minutes, i don't blame you for being salty that someone you perceive to be like dirt could refute a whole complex argument arranged by scientists simply by using our language appropriately.....


the whole concept is flawed, just like any other concept that fails to explain why or how...

short and sweet...ID does not actually explain the why and how...it just says,

there are missing things in what we observe, and we feel an intelligent being is responsible for the layout...

profound.

peace,

sean

10:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Dorff

You are wasting energy, mine and yours, you either agree with Meyer's analysis of the Cambrian Explosion and its implications for Darwinism or you don't. If indeed you don't, then please let us know which aspects of Meyer's essay you take issue with?

You write "you've never really offered anything in the form of constructive discussion here"

Yet I have suggested you read a scientifc essay that explores the facts surrounding the Cambrian fossils and how those facts are at stark variance with the empirical expectations of Darwinism. I then invite you to freely, scientifically respond in your own way.

You'r a time waster who likes to make vacuous comments, you say nothing of substance, you simply take an opposing stance then refuse to do the scientific thing and explore with an open mind, the facts under discussion.

Now please deal with the issue at hand or shut up, is that too much to ask? How dare you make wild assertions about other people's beliefs, condemning them in public and then complain when someone presents you with material that supports their position?

Here is you paraphrased:

"ID is bull and those losers that beleive it are dumb, dreamers. And dont bother trying to prove anything or saying anything in your defense, because you are always doing that, you are awlays saying and writing things just sway other people".

See how utterly stupid you sound?

Regards
Hugh

10:28 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi JG

I personally dont like the term "ID" because quite understandably many people consider it to be "creationism" or some pseudo-scientific offshoot, this makes discussion of it more of a challenge that I think it needs to be.

Creationism itself is a multi-faceted subject there are some clearly uneducated people making claims that are ridiculous, but there has always been a small subset of educated, acomplished scientists who feel that something needs to said about the problematic variance between observation and Darwinism.

I place no trust in what the majority happen to believe, I never have, if I am personally dissatisfied with something I will say so, I will not disregard nagging problems, I find no comfort in the "system" or "the scientists" or "convention", I never have, and I have been proven right in this attitude many times in my life.

If we take ID to simply be the idea that some of what we observe in nature very much looks like someone/something "designed it" and then see if we can distinguish between apparent design and real design, then that is ID in a nutshell so far as I am concerned.

Darwinism is at fault, because it claims that everything we percieve in biology to be "design" is only apparent; it looks like design, but isn't.

This is my first objection "dogma".

If there are observations in nature that really do look like design, then I do not think that anyone needs to justify themselves when they take the issue seriously.

Because we do not yet have a scientific, mathematical model that allows us to distinguish between "real design" and "apparent design" there is no way that any scientist can legitimately claim there was no "designer" or that all apparent design is just apparent. The whole Darwinian system is founded upon the axiom that all of what looks like "design" is nothing more than appearances.

The simple minded critics of ID are readily recognised, they are the ones that imply that it is outrageous to "resort" to a designer, just because something is "currently unexplained". The fact is that it is not outrageous at all, unless one holds Darwinsim itself to be some cherished model, elevated to the status of an unquestionable truth.

Too many supporters of Darwinism defend it far too eagerly, any contrary evidence (that would in any other field of science be regarded as highly relevant) is always treated by Darwinists as "unimportant" with rhetoric like "we don't know yet but we will eventually" or "we have computer models" or "but the molecular clock proves that..." etc.

My own reading on this subject made it clear to me in my twenties, that despite a scientific education and sound knowledge of Physics, Mathematics, Engineering etc, there are some observations that cannot be glossed over, that take a lot of effort and intellectual dishonesty to ignore, and I am unwilling to blinker myslef.

Meyer's essay is superb, because he really understands his subject, the facts are undisputed by peers, but the relevance of some of them is questioned, which is why we have debates on these subjects.

That essay by the way forms part of a book, in that book several essays are presented by well know scientists and academics that consider Darwinism to be false. The book however includes many rejoinders from staunch opponents of ID, so one can read for oneself how the Darwiniists deal with these issues.

The facts surrounding the "Cambrian Exolosion" are frankly, staggering. The facts are very troubling for Darwinism if one is an honest thinker (Darwin himself was very very concerned).

I urge you to read the essay, it is very well written, full of documented facts that most Darwinists simply never raise, clearly something dramatic ocurred 545 million years ago, something staggering in its implications, at least I think so.

Hugh

11:18 AM

 
Blogger J_G said...

Hugh and anyone else that is interested, over the years of my life I have personally seen and felt divine intervention. Oh it can't document or make a study of it but it is there nonetheless.

I don't have a single problem with scientists discovering all the wonders that are around us and if it makes people happy to think that this is all a random accident then that is their loss.

Heck, one of my best friends is a legitimate scientist that has made the study of chemicals her life. My friend is now passing her knowledge on to college students. My friend Diane’s understanding of chemicals has not changed her beliefs, she also subscribes to the same general belief as Sir Isaac Newton.

I am an amateur, historian, (and a professional pain in the butt).I also believe in the same general principle that Sir Isaac Newton believed; all of these great wonders were created by a supreme being namely God. If it takes scientists to show to other scientists that these wonders can't possibly be random accidents with a theory called “Intelligent Design” then I guess that's what needs to be done. I have no confidence though that many so-called scientists (real scientists leave no stone unturned) or that academia as it is known today will change because of this theory. For me, I just live my life and try to be a good example (if that’s possible) but being human, all too human I fail on occasion.

Sure I get insulted by people that are in some other understanding of life because I am certain about myself and sure of my beliefs. I try and shrug it off and go my way. Sometimes I strike back and later I feel bad about it but I'm learning to leave that part of my life behind as I advance myself. I will always defend my beliefs though.

I will read the piece that you suggested Hugh. Have a nice weekend.

12:31 AM

 
Blogger S.R. Deardorff said...

Oooh!!! I love this game!!!

Here is Hugh paraphrased:

"I'm right! I always have been! I'm like god compared to you ignorant morons! Obviously, because I read this essay, I have a right to proclaim it the one and only truth of all existence! Because I'm so great, I shall act great until confronted. When confronted, I will damn and belittle the dissenters as dishonest morons!"

See, Hugh, how much of a fundamentalist, fascist, narcissistic, authoritarian you are?

By the way, thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for giving me permission to reply to you in the manner you command. Thank you, for giving me permission to do scientific research and to post my conclusions here. You are great, and to you I bow...Oh...and, by far most important:

Thank you for putting words in my mouth...

But, as I'm sure some others here can testify, we're kinda' used to you putting words in people's mouths now, aren't we?

You have a fundamental NEED to distort reality in order to justify and rationalize your existence and behavior, that's sad...it's sad that you can't find true purpose without deception....sad and satan-like...

Allow me to conclude by paraphrasing Hugh once more:

"I'm right, you're wrong, go read."



http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/eandp.pdf



the first and last articles are the best reads...the last one is a new one i found recently...and, ironically enough, that particular article mentions your Meyers character as an easily passed over, weak and meaningless character in the I.D.-school of thought--I wonder why you didn't point us towards the more respected proponents of I.D.--wonder why you chose to point us towards the man objectively viewed as one of ID's "little fish," yet you think he's "superb!"

in the end Hugh...you're no different than those you rail against...you jump to conclusions and claim a righteous, pompous, arrogant position as the ONE TRUE enlightened individual in any forum, the ONE honest mind of the bunch...

if you need to use the term "honest" to describe your thoughts, then you no doubt feel fear that others will perceive you as dishonest, end of story...

cya-turd!

peace n whatnot,

sean

11:44 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Dorff

Still no hard comments about what Meyer has to say, I can only conclude you are in agreement with him.

Of course there is no shortage of anti-ID material, I have read it, your posts are an example of it (and of the often limited scholarship behind it).

Of course I am right, I am willing to admit that I may be wrong, but unless you can direct me toward flws or errors in Meyers paper, then I see no reason for me to alter my view of the Cambrian Explosion.

Incidentally I dont claim to be the "one true enlightened individual" I do claim that Meyers paper seriously undermines Darwinim and unless you or someone cen tell me why Meyer (and others) are wrong then I will continue to hold this view.

Regards
Hugh

12:37 PM

 
Blogger S.R. Deardorff said...

let's be simple here Hugh---->>>

Are you a christian?

Do you believe in God?



peace,

sean

5:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Dorff

You are adept at changing the subject and evading the issue, this thread is about ID, I suggested that the observations regarding the Cambrian Explosion severely undermines Darwinism as my contribution to the thread.

So far nobody has indicated the the example essay I referred to (and there are many others) is bad science or factually incorrect, I am keen to here peoples opinions on this subject but all I get from you is postings that simply refuse to explain what it is about Meyers essay that you take issue with.

Regards
Hugh

10:03 AM

 
Blogger S.R. Deardorff said...

i'm not evading the issue nor changing the subject...actually, what is happening is i'm trying to get to the heart of the issue---->>>the fact that you are that which you hate: a dogmatic idealogue with no intentions to actually further progress knowledge and truth, rather, you are out to spread your ideas, to slyly manipulate language in an attempt to feel and appear superior...

and, yes, in fact, i did state exactly what is wrong with meyer's paper; i said it merely reiterated that which is already known and cried foul because the science community refuses to jump to conclusions and scream, "God did it!!!"

your refusal to answer my previous question will be taken to mean that 1. you are a christian 2. you do believe in god (and, subsequently see the term "intelligent designer" as the equivalent to the term "god")

i'm not saying ID is bad science, i'm saying it's not science at all; end of story...

anyone who can read can see that there is nothing offered by the proponents of ID, nothing at all; you and your ilk are simply cry-baby wanna be's with a hidden agenda---too cowardly to speak honestly about what you're trying to do...

if anyone is evading anything here, hugh, it's you...you're evading the truth of your narcissistic nature...you're evading the fact that you're a dogmatic hypocrite who has no intention of ever changing his mind----->>>

you're like a little lost child--->>>> your real argument is simple, and easy to find:

"I believe in God and I will until you prove otherwise..."

methinks perhaps you really hate yourself for never learning how to live, and, now, for whatever sadistic reason, feel the need to hump this little wet dream of yours until you cum or until someone finally gives in and gets underneath you...

look hugh...here's the scoop, poop...i'm not even gonna bother with you anymore--->>>you're too cowardly a person to engage in honest conversation--->>you're a manipulative impotent intellect and nothing more.....

peace out bro'!

and good luck with your fascist thinking,

sean

p.s.

i don't care

;P

10:30 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you call this: "it merely reiterated that which is already known and cried foul" your critical resposne to Meyers essay?

What did Meyer actually write that you consider "crying foul"? (sentence, paragraphs please??)

What is wrong with reiterating what is already known? does doing so render any following argument inadmissable?

This is a truly foolish argument and any reader of this Blog can see your inadequacies for what they are.

You are like so many others; indoctrinated by popular ideology, you "beleive" in Darwinism because it's safe to do so, you are clearly frightened at the prospect of being seriously challenged because you have not arrived at your beliefs through any kind of analysis or weighing up the facts, arguments etc; hence cannot defend them other than to draw attention to negative comments about the author (which incidentally have ZERO bearing upon the validty or invalidity of what he writes).

I know more than you do about both Darwinism and ID and my opinion in these matters is based on my contrasting the facts and arguments on both sides, I am comfortable with this.

Here is (I am getting tired of this) a simple question:

Is there any sentence or paragraph in Meyers essay that you take issue with? if so then plese $@#%**( tell us all what it is !!

and like you, I can draw conclusion from YOUR lack of response, namely that you in fact do not know why you diagree with Meyer or even worse, what exactlt you disagree on!

I am sorry to embarass you, but this is all your own doing Sir.

Sinecerly

Hugh

10:22 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh one more thing DearDork

I have changed my mind (you only had to ask) up until I was 25 or so I was a staunch beleiver and defender of Darwinsim.

Hugh

10:26 AM

 
Blogger S.R. Deardorff said...

hugh wrote:
"What is wrong with reiterating what is already known?"
=======>>>answer: "nothing"
===============================
what is happening is i'm trying to get to the heart of the issue---->>>the fact that you are that which you hate: a dogmatic idealogue with no intentions to actually further progress knowledge and truth, rather, you are out to spread your ideas, to slyly manipulate language in an attempt to feel and appear superior...

and, yes, in fact, i did state exactly what is wrong with meyer's paper; i said it merely reiterated that which is already known and cried foul because the science community refuses to jump to conclusions and scream, "God did it!!!"

your refusal to answer my previous question will be taken to mean that 1. you are a christian 2. you do believe in god (and, subsequently see the term "intelligent designer" as the equivalent to the term "god")

i'm not saying ID is bad science, i'm saying it's not science at all; end of story...

anyone who can read can see that there is nothing offered by the proponents of ID, nothing at all; you and your ilk are simply cry-baby wanna be's with a hidden agenda---too cowardly to speak honestly about what you're trying to do...

if anyone is evading anything here, hugh, it's you...you're evading the truth of your narcissistic nature...you're evading the fact that you're a dogmatic hypocrite who has no intention of ever changing his mind----->>>

you're like a little lost child--->>>> your real argument is simple, and easy to find:

"I believe in God and I will until you prove otherwise..."

methinks perhaps you really hate yourself for never learning how to live, and, now, for whatever sadistic reason, feel the need to hump this little wet dream of yours until you cum or until someone finally gives in and gets underneath you...

look hugh...here's the scoop, poop...i'm not even gonna bother with you anymore--->>>you're too cowardly a person to engage in honest conversation--->>you're a manipulative impotent intellect and nothing more.....

peace out bro'!

and good luck with your fascist thinking,

sean

p.s.

i don't care

;P

==========
and, to reiterate more
==============
i'm not saying ID is bad science, i'm saying it's not science at all

i'm not saying ID is bad science, i'm saying it's not science at all

i'm not saying ID is bad science, i'm saying it's not science at all

i'm not saying ID is bad science, i'm saying it's not science at all

i'm not saying ID is bad science, i'm saying it's not science at all

i'm not saying ID is bad science, i'm saying it's not science at all

i'm not saying ID is bad science, i'm saying it's not science at all

i'm not saying ID is bad science, i'm saying it's not science at all

i'm not saying ID is bad science, i'm saying it's not science at all

i'm not saying ID is bad science, i'm saying it's not science at all

i'm not saying ID is bad science, i'm saying it's not science at all

i'm not saying ID is bad science, i'm saying it's not science at all

i'm not saying ID is bad science, i'm saying it's not science at all

i'm not saying ID is bad science, i'm saying it's not science at all

i'm not saying ID is bad science, i'm saying it's not science at all

i'm not saying ID is bad science, i'm saying it's not science at all
========================
seriously....stop trying to convert me; i understand and appreciate the knowledge you're trying to pass along; i do not necessarily disagree with the facts of your stupid essay that you keep referring to---->>>>STOP PUTTING WORDS IN OTHER PEOPLE'S MOUTHS YOU MANIPULATIVE ROTTEN-TWAT-SCAT-MUNCHER---->>>>

I'M SICK OF YOUR POMPOUS DISPLAY OF RIGHTEOUS NARCISSISM.......GET OVER YOURSELF YOU TWISTED SOCIOPATH!!!!

you're maddening on one hand and highly laughable on the other---->>>i can't help but read what you've wrote, particularly your claims to intellectual superiority and laugh my ass off--->>>you're so self-centered and neurotic you can't even comprehend what other people are saying---->>>get out of your bubble---->>>stop humping george w. bush's asshole---->>>>and join the rest of the world, hugh...




seriously, stop replying, i have no desire to discuss ID anymore with you because you're a moron; any replies will only be degrading to your already wretched existence---->>>call it what you will; i don't care--->>i don't agree that everyone here will come to the same conclusion as you claim, nor am i righteous enough to believe so---->>>>phuck off, go to hell...

peace,

sean

10:42 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You need to see a psychiatrist buddy, this thread is about ID, whether you agree or disagree, you have no real basis for complaining.

If you think that my asking you to justify your opposition to an essay on ID (in a thread started by the Blog owner, ABOUT ID) is "trying to convert" you then you shouldnt be participating in these online discussions.

So many mouthy, opinionated idiots are all too eager to ridicule those who support aspects of ID, but they start acting like lunatics when someone challenges them to explain themselves.

I dont give two fucks if you are upset, outraged or what, this thread is about ID, you chose to get in an mouth off and now stand exposed, in public as unable to asnwer simple questions about your position?

and that's all my nasty fault?

Get a grip kid.

Hugh

2:36 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DearDorf in an early post (see above)

"
1. the two things which are the basis for christian tenets are love of god and love of neighbor: simply, love and forgiveness

2. love and forgiveness will cause, naturally, people to gravitate more and more towards "good" behavior"

DearDorf in a few recent posts:

"STOP PUTTING WORDS IN OTHER PEOPLE'S MOUTHS YOU MANIPULATIVE ROTTEN-TWAT-SCAT-MUNCHER"

"need to hump this little wet dream of yours until you cum"

"cya-turd!"

I wonder what a psychologist would make of this? the ever present themes of scatology and sex may mean something.

I really do think that Deardork may be the kinda guy that goes postal one day.

Hugh

3:59 PM

 
Blogger S.R. Deardorff said...

i'm just gonna keep re-posting this in reply until you get it:

there's no arguing or even conversing with you, as you've already stated, you've made up your mind and do not intend to change it; you're here for one purpose--->>to feed your own ego and prove that you're "right." yet, you don't even understand the FACT that there is no "right," or "wrong," when it comes to the origins of the universe...you're ignorant of your ignorance, which is a terrible predicament...

you're so self-centered and neurotic you can't even comprehend what other people are saying---->>>get out of your bubble---->>>stop humping george w. bush's asshole---->>>>and join the rest of the world, hugh...

seriously, stop replying, i have no desire to discuss ID anymore with you because you're a moron; any replies will only be degrading to your already wretched existence---->>>call it what you will; i don't care--->>i don't agree that everyone here will come to the same conclusion as you claim, nor am i righteous enough to believe so---->>>>forgive yourself, and heal up, bud...


peace,

sean

5:01 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, let's just move on, this interaction long ago stopped being stimulating.

Hugh

2:50 PM

 
Blogger S.R. Deardorff said...

agreed.

peace.

with love.

sean.

12:41 AM

 
Blogger fwr said...

I discovered this blog quite by accident and just started reading, although I haven't read the entire thread.
I guess I'm commenting at this time because sometimes I just like to argue (God help me, but when I see a point to make, I just love to argue that point).
I also love the sciences, including the science of reason, Logic.

So, here it is - short and sweet.

S.R. Deardorff said...
"by the laws of logic...we must admit that we will never KNOW whether or not god exists..."
I submit that even if we cannot "know" at this time, it does not follow logically that we will "never" know.
So, unfortunately, although you invoked the laws of logic, your statement was, in fact, illogical.
Sorry.

Also, regarding the origin of the universe:
Different people have different opinions about the origin of the universe.
But this is not a question like "What is the greatest song ever written?" - which is truly a matter of opinion, with no actual "correct" answer.
The question of the origin of the universe is a question which ultimately does have a correct answer.
In that sense, it is not a matter of opinion at all.

On another topic (God's "gender"):
Let's just say that "God is neither male, nor female - but He's mostly not female."
(tongue in cheek)

5:33 PM

 
Blogger fwr said...

J_G,
I actually liked your analogy of smashing the two rocks together, and the almost infinitely improbable result that there might be some kind of intelligent life in that pile of dust.
Clearly, short of a miracle, the probabilities are so small as to be virtually non-existant.
And that's what it comes down to: The creation was a miracle.

"Every scientist knows that, even if an entire universe could, somehow, come into existance out of nothing, it wouldn't do it for no reason." - Unknown.

On the other hand, in spite of my belief in God, the creator of the heavens and the Earth, I do not believe that creationism belongs in the science classroom because it is, frankly, unscientific.

6:50 PM

 
Blogger The Language Guy said...

Why there is life on this or that planet but not another is the sort of thing that can be explained. Religious people often want to ask the question, "For what purpose was life created?" That forces a religious account since no scientist could possibly supply a legitimate answer.

You are right that Creationism doesn't belong the science curriculum since it is not subject to verification/refutation. I could belong in a course on mythology/religion, of course. It is interesting that religious people are so desperate for a demonstration of the legitimacy of their views that they will invent a phony discipline to provide it.

6:42 AM

 
Blogger The Language Guy said...

fwr, sadly your claim "I submit that even if we cannot "know" at this time, it does not follow logically that we will "never" know" has no merit since there is no agreement on what God is or might be.

As I have said many times, if God were overnight to move the Ohio State University football stadium from one side of the Olentangy river to the other, then I will believe and you will have your knowledge and your proof. Ain't gonna happen and you know it.

You are engaged in fairly trivial counter-arguments. Define "God" and then we can talk about knowing whether he/she/it exists. I await your definition.

8:29 AM

 
Blogger fwr said...

Will a general definition suffice, or will you need a complete definition?

After all, we cannot even "completely" define "Man" - how are we going to completely define God?

Therefore, a complete definition will not be required in order to discuss the existance of a thing.
A general definition will have to do.

General definition of God.
A supernatural entity of supreme authority, transcending the laws of nature, creator of the universe.

Clearly, proving that such an entity does not exist is going to be difficult.

On approach could be to prove that the existance of such an entity would be a logical impossibility.
But how does one prove that?
So, that's no help.

It has always been a simpler matter to prove the existance of something than to prove the non-existance of something.

There are many experiments which demonstrate (prove) the existance of electrons, and yet, no one has ever seen one.

You said, "...if God were overnight to move the Ohio State University football stadium from one side of the Olentangy river to the other, then I will believe..."
If so, you would only be believing because of "evidence", but I don't imagine that your "opinion" of God would change.

I believe that there already exists ample evidence of God's existance:
The two great pillars of science, Cause and Effect, require, among other things, that "universes are not allowed to just happen".

For that matter, nothing else is allowed to just happen, either.

5:21 PM

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home