Science/christianity/intelligent design

[HydrogenBond]

Reality is an abstract concept that is developed within the human mind. At one time, the human perceived reality including a flat earth. What we perceive as reality has its foundation within the human mind. Once the planet Pluto was not even a part of human reality perception until a human mind discovered it and others learned it. For example, a tree is real and is based in reality. If you asked ten people to describe a tree and then draw it, it is likely this one reality object, will have ten different pictures, each based on something in each person's mind, whether it be science or sentiment. Each person's perception of the same reality thing can be different, yet each will insist their tree is real. Which of these is reality? They all are since they all fits the abstraction specifications.

 

We can tighten this up, if we give each person the same picture of the tree to make as their standard. This allows group reality to become tighter. But once that is agreed on, if someone was to get out one of the old drawings, which was once considered viable reality, the group may say this is now out of touch with their reality, since this is not the reality we agreed on. There are two things going on; the object and human perception, with the human perception defining the reality, since this is an abstraction.

 

Where ID and science actually converge, is when reality first appeared in terms of a conceptual foundation in the human mind. The date of Genesis and the rise of civilization coordinate fairly well. This is when the first version of the abstraction called reality appeared in the human mind. The animal does not know reality the same way as a human, since they can't quite grasp this concept. There is no place in their brain for them to build the abstract foundation for this concept so they can not perceive reality in a human way. Genesis talks about when the human brain changed allowing the first abstract reality concept.

 

It is subtle. Before a student learns science, science is not yet fully part of their perception of reality, because they have not yet been taught the group reality. They don't know electrons are particle and waves until it is taught, then it is real to them. This physical reality existed when they were babies, but it was not perceived as part of their perception of reality until they learned about it. The ID reality happened when the human mind changed about 10,000 years ago. It created the first abstract concept about reality, and therefore laid the foundation to continues to allows humans to explain and teach human perception of reality. This is important to science. ID needs to see the human perception of reality has evolved since the original, with science adding much more detail to the original.

 

The debate is not physics and biology, but the actual event when the modern human mind first was able to develop a concept of reality. That first reality had the universe appearing in one day. This was an important breakthrough in evolution, since modern human perception of reality had been formless and void in the mind of the pre-humans. Then the modern human mind awoke. With the new ability to abstract, in hand, humans started to explain the world as they saw it, based on what it could understand at that point in time. It was the Wright Brother's first flight for the modern mind, making even future science possible. Humans have continued to build on this. Science is based on that humble foundation, with that first perception of reality making it possible to keep improving the design. This does not preclude genetics or God giving that spark to the human mind. Adam may have bee the first mutation capable of abstraction or the first recipient of the divine spark, depending on one's view.

[jedaisoul]

Reality is an abstract concept that is developed within the human mind. At one time, the human perceived reality including a flat earth. What we perceive as reality has its foundation within the human mind.

No. The concept of reality is developed within the human mind. Reality exists whether we conceive it to or not. The example you give is a good example of this: Man conceived the world to be flat, but that does not mean that it was in reality flat. It was, in reality, a rocky ball orbiting the sun. Man's conception of reality is not reality. The rest of your argument is shown to be false by your own example.

 

The debate is not physics and biology...

On the contrary the debate is precisely about physics and biology. ID is not a science, and has no bearing on science. There is (in principle) no interaction between ID and science. ID tells us nothing about science, and vice versa. I say in principle because science can tell us nothing about what caused the universe to come into existence. But it can show conclusions based on ID to be wrong, such as the age of the universe.

[UncleAl]

Uncle Al was formed by God blowing life into clay. It's in the Book! All humanity is hydrated aluminosilicate. Everything contrary is the work of the Devil - and anybody who disagrees is thereby proven unfit to comment.

 

"Blessed are the cheesemakers," a wise man once said. Or maybe not. Only a schismatic self-serving heretic would then declare that statement to be allegory encompassing all dairy workers.

[sanctus]

 

I think the point is that ID does not in any way contradict science.

 

If it doesn't contradict science it doesn't imply it is science. Just as the presence of a fish doesn't contradict the presence of a bike, but the fish is no bike...

[jedaisoul]

I think the point is that ID does not in any way contradict science.

Oops, I missed this comment. The point is that the proponents of ID claim that it is a science.

 

If they claimed that it was a philosophical or theological view, there would be no dispute. At least, not with science.

[HydrogenBond]

There is another aspect of ID that is based on science. They don't use the God angle but try to find reason over random, which they assume is a more intelligent design for evolution. With humans, reason evolved after the more random approach of the alchemists. Some of their results are used by religion. They are still scientists and can't fully explain it. The religious replace their unknown cause and affect with God. For example,

 

Barry Hall did a very interesting experiment with E. coli bacteria. E. coli bacteria naturally produce a lactase enzyme that hydrolyses the sugar lactose into the sugars glucose and galactose, which it can break down further to produce usable energy. What Hall did was to delete this lacZ gene so that these particular E. coli bacteria could no longer make the lactase enzyme. He then grew these bacteria on a lactose enriched media/environment. In a very short time (one generation), these bacteria evolved the ability to use lactose again. Upon further investigation, Hall found that a single point mutation to another very different gene resulted in the production of a lactase enzyme. Hall named this new gene the "evolved beta-galactosidase" gene (ebgA).

 

They still like evolution but changes are less an accident but has some basis in cause and effect. For example, an animal that develops a new capability isn't due to accident or some random process. There is an environmental pressure that helps this occur. Both approaches will result in the same selective advantage, the difference is one group says cause and affect, and the other group says, it was a roll of the dice.

 

The roll of the dice approach has the upper hand since they only have to use statistics to get reasonable results. The rational group has a harder burden of proof because they insistent on reason, with the rational details not yet firm. The religious ID jump in and give their bible reasons. This is taken to be the basis of the science movement.

[InfiniteNow]

Regardless of the type of design you describe, inherent in such an approach is the need for a designer. Then, you get into the same reductio ad infinitum on what designed the designer, and what designed that.

 

 

Also, evolution by natural selection is NOT random. It's cumulative. You don't start from scratch every time, you build on what came before, so calling it a "random" process is as far from the truth and misrepresentative as you could be.

[freeztar]

They still like evolution but changes are less an accident but has some basis in cause and effect. For example, an animal that develops a new capability isn't due to accident or some random process. There is an environmental pressure that helps this occur. Both approaches will result in the same selective advantage, the difference is one group says cause and affect, and the other group says, it was a roll of the dice.

Evolutionary scientists believe in both random and cause-effect vectors of evolution. So really, your point is completely moot.

[Rade]

...Intelligent design is a theory, meaning that it cannot be proven wrong...

No, Intelligent Design, in the form vis-a-vis Demsey, Behe, etc. is not a theory because it is based on the belief that irreducible complex structures exist and were formed by methods outside the known laws and facts of nature. This is why Intelligent Design thinking is outside of science--it is a faith and/or philosophy, etc., but it has nothing to do with science. This is what the Federal judge in the Penna. case concluded.

 

A 'theory' is a scientific "explanation" that uses facts and known laws of nature in an attempt to understand something. Darwins thinking on Natural Selection for example is a type of theory, Intelligent Design is no theory at all.

[eye on the skies]

Alright already!

 

I said that the point is that ID does not contradict science.

 

I did not mean to imply that this was THE point of the thread. I just meant that that was the point I was making.

 

So sorry to have confused so many.

[InfiniteNow]

Try not to take it personally, eye on the skies.

 

This being a science oriented forum, we have witnessed countless posts from people attacking evolution on the basis of their faith, and also supporting ideas like ID and creationism without any scientific rigor. If you have been misperceived, it's not necessarily a fault of your own, but an effect of those who came before.

 

However, ID is a bunk and worthless approach. It posits that some purple unicorn shat everything into existence, but doesn't care to look into the question of what created the unicorn itself.

 

I find it to be a faith based, empirically weak, and invalid approach. That is not science, that is fiction... story telling.

 

So, when you said:

 

I said that the point is that ID does not contradict science.

 

... I wanted to ask you, why not? What is it about ID that you think is not contradictory to science? I can make a case that it IS contradictory, but that has been done countless times already. Please, I want to understand your thoughts on this, but I need you to more clearly articulate your reasons for making the statement:

 

"ID does not contradict science."

 

 

Respectfully. :hihi:

[HydrogenBond]

If you look at the evolution of the human mind and science, empiricism evolved before rationalism. Using God to explain stuff was one of the original empirical models. The flat earth was also an empirical model. As long people did not try to sail beyond the horizon, and did not have telescopes to look at the sky, the empirical evidence resulted in a flat earth theory. Even the heavens looked empirically perfect with the naked eye. Once there were telescopes and world sailing, new data was added and the data suggested round. Later the data added a bulge in the middle.

 

All I am saying is evolution is valid, in a general sense, but it does not yet fully use the next evolutionary rational step. The rapid adaptation of bacteria to medicines is too fast to be purely random. The ability of E. coli to tweak a gene to replace a lost gene is a miracle if we think in terms of evolution being random. The empirical approach, by its own definitions of the odds meets up with many lotto winners that are defying the odds. Some people default to the original empirical God model which allows this. That model uses a rapid change assumption instead of a random assumption, which in the case of these observations, appears to have a slight edge.

 

They are both empirical. If you replace God with the term natural laws then natural laws caused this rapid change. The other approach says there are no such natural laws that can cause this, it is purely odds and numbers. It is nothing more than playing the lottery, there is always going to be a winner. The ID says, no God choses the winner. The rational mind says this has a logical explanation, which is the third point of view. Logic suggest the ability to chose the winner with logic. But among empirical alternatives this sounds sort of like the God model because it is not playing by the odds. It suggest the ability to pick the winning horse time after time. But this is what rational models are suppose to do, like Newton's laws of gravity.

[InfiniteNow]

Just in case you missed it the last seventeen times you were reminded, evolution is not random. Except for that very serious misrepresentation, the rest was an interesting perspective and I thank you for it.

 

 

 

'Growing Up in the Universe' Ep 3: Climbing Mount Improbable http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-690865967686494800

 

 

"I call tihs "smearing out the luck," because we don't have to get our luck in one ridiculously large dollup. Instead, we can get our luck in "dribs" and "drabs." Each drib being aloud to count before the next drab. And we go on to wait until the next bit of luck. It accumulates."

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Comment MOVED to thread.O.k. here we go.

 

It fit here but I have bigger plans for it.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Also moved. Sorry...but to be perfectly honest I didn't want to have the intent of these posts to be misunderstood due to their location. Again I have high hopes for them...very high hopes. And I doubt they could achieve my goals for them being lumped in a discussion about ID. Again sorry.

[eye on the skies]

InfiniteNow,

Even though there is no proof that God exists, does not mean that He truly does not exist.

 

I could say that purple unicorns do exist. Yes this would be based on faith, but still aren't new species being discovered everyday? There was no proof of them existing before, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. It just means that up till now, there has never been any proof. For all we know purple unicorns exist in microscopic form at the bottom of the ocean. So of course we would not know of their existence. Now I know this is a stretch. I wrote this sort of joking, so don't call me out on it. But really, a lack of proof does not serve as proof. I didn't say that ID is qualified as a theory or that it should replace our knowledge of science. It does not contradict science though.

 

You said something to the effect that people of faith do not question how the creator was created. Well, the thing is, I think, that God was not created. He just is. And all of His creation is contingent upon His existence (since the existence of everything is contingent upon something else).

I said in an earlier post that it would be possible if there could have been an omnipotent being from an entirely different plane of existence. He does not exist in our own. He created our own from somewhat of another realm. And I know this is based on faith. But all I am saying is that it's possible. That's what I meant by it not contradicting science. Not that it is science, but that even though it isn't, it is still possible.

[InfiniteNow]

I suppose you are correct that "we can't be certain." However, I am confident that god doesn't exist for the same exact reason that I'm confident that fairies don't exist, or that 9 headed leprechauns with donkey dongs don't exist. I concede that I can't be 100% certain of any of those things, but the preponderance of evidence suggest that they don't, my certainty is far above 99%, and I think a more fitting description comes from the social and psychological sciences, as well as the evolutionary success offered from group behavior and societal cohesion.

 

 

As for the "god is just there" comment you made, that really isn't good enough for many of us. It's like when a child asks you "why is the sky blue" or "why does the sun shine" and you respond "It just does."

 

It really offers nothing but a distraction from the true answers being sought. :circle: