My Problems with Creationism/Intelligent Design

[Turtle]

I do not know whether or not the universe was created, nor does anyone else. If it was NOT created, it would seem to go against all other occurrences of which we are aware. If it WAS created by some agent, that agent may still be operational in the universe even though we can't detect it. Maybe it would be part of dark matter, or whatever the unexplained mass turns out to be.

 

I can only say, in light of my current study of Buckminster Fuller's Synergetics, that your boldned phrase is false and no support of either intelligent design or its lipstick, creationism. To whit, synergy is a generalized principle (in the strictest scientific meaning) that says

Synergy means behavior of whole systems unpredicted by the behavior of their parts taken separately.

source

 

In any regard, you have conceded that your objections are moot. :D

Therefore, what we are aware of is no sure indication of what may be.

[questor]

Originally Posted by Fuller

Synergy means behavior of whole systems unpredicted by the behavior of their parts taken separately.

 

Did Fuller mention whether his systems occurred with or without cause?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Fuller

Synergy means behavior of whole systems unpredicted by the behavior of their parts taken separately.

 

Did Fuller mention whether his systems occurred with or without cause?

 

I must suggest you read it for yourself as you frequently interpret words differently than I. :) At any rate, I've had a belly full of the topic yet again & I'll leave you to hash it out with others and/or read what the other threads here contain on the topic. ;)

[Hawkins]

Science is to not to include God as a factor in scientific formula. So science may not apply in case something is truly created by God (by ignoring defined rules or by creating with rules we do not know).

 

ID is thus more objective in that it doesn't need of fall into the 'polical correct' of excluding God. To simply put, science has to assume that God has no effect on the researching subject for things to be correct, while ID doesn't need to make that assumption.

 

And the question here is, is science the only truth? If no, how to research those truth do not concern science at all, or rather out of the reach of science?

[InfiniteNow]

And the question here is, is science the only truth? If no, how to research those truth do not concern science at all, or rather out of the reach of science?

 

That means they are opinions, not truths. Sorry, try again. Injecting god in this context is no different than injecting purple unicorns. If you can't prove it or demonstrate it via a falsifiable test, then you can't use it.

[modest]

Science is to not to include God as a factor in scientific formula.

There is no such rule or guideline in science. I've said this before in this post: The day some scientist gets a formula that has god in it to work well--that day god will become part of science. The scientific method chooses theories, laws, and models that work. The equations in them need to be able to describe observations and predict future observations. If there were a theory or law that said "A + B + 'the hand of god' = C" and that gave reliable results then god would no longer be absent in science. There is nothing about science that prevents that from happening now.

 

The fact is, we have never needed god in an equation of science. God has never been useful. We can describe gravity and energy and life best without god.

 

So science may not apply in case something is truly created by God (by ignoring defined rules or by creating with rules we do not know).

 

For reasons I give above, this is not correct.

 

ID is thus more objective in that it doesn't need of fall into the 'polical correct' of excluding God. To simply put, science has to assume that God has no effect on the researching subject for things to be correct, while ID doesn't need to make that assumption.

 

While intelligent design assumes that intelligence had a part in the development of life, Science itself makes no assumption either way. If intelligent design were a theory of science that gave good results then it could be considered a good scientific theory. But, I.D. is not a theory. It does not give any results - much less, good ones. Science therefore can't choose ID to be a good scientific theory. It has nothing to do with God at all.

 

~modest

[Hawkins]

That means they are opinions, not truths. Sorry, try again. Injecting god in this context is no different than injecting purple unicorns. If you can't prove it or demonstrate it via a falsifiable test, then you can't use it.

 

That remains your own opinions, try again. Science is never the only truth, you can't establish falsifiable tests efficiently for truth contained in, say, political rules and even economic rules.

 

Moreover, ID is never an attempt to include God into the research, it just doesn't assume the 'political correct' that 'God must not be included'.

[Hawkins]

There is no such rule or guideline in science. I've said this before in this post: The day some scientist gets a formula that has god in it to work well--that day god will become part of science. The scientific method chooses theories, laws, and models that work. The equations in them need to be able to describe observations and predict future observations. If there were a theory or law that said "A + B + 'the hand of god' = C" and that gave reliable results then god would no longer be absent in science. There is nothing about science that prevents that from happening now.

 

The fact is, we have never needed god in an equation of science. God has never been useful. We can describe gravity and energy and life best without god.

 

For reasons I give above, this is not correct.

 

While intelligent design assumes that intelligence had a part in the development of life, Science itself makes no assumption either way. If intelligent design were a theory of science that gave good results then it could be considered a good scientific theory. But, I.D. is not a theory. It does not give any results - much less, good ones. Science therefore can't choose ID to be a good scientific theory. It has nothing to do with God at all.

 

~modest

 

???You are trying to extend the past into the future. It's not even scientific to say that because God is not usefuf in the past, such that God must not useful in the future. That remains a belief inside your belief system, based on past experience though.

 

Again, science is an attempt to exclude the factor of God into the formula, or else, repeatedly testable, falsifyable and predictable rules, as the most characteristic features of science, are meaningless.

 

Your conclusion about ID remains a valid argument towards ToE.

[modest]

It's not even scientific to say that because God is not usefuf in the past, such that God must not useful in the future. That remains a belief inside your belief system, based on past experience though.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about, but please refrain from informing me as to my belief system and assuming what I think will be useful in the future.

 

~modest

[Hawkins]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but please refrain from informing me as to my belief system and assuming what I think will be useful in the future.

 

~modest

 

Of course, that's a lame excuss. I can explain more in details if you truly don't understand.

[InfiniteNow]

[REASON]

Of course, that's a lame excuss. I can explain more in details if you truly don't understand.

 

In a matter of six posts, it is already highly questionable whether you can adequately explain anything.

 

Step carefully young wanderer. There are wolves in these parts.

[Hawkins]

In a matter of six posts, it is already highly questionable whether you can adequately explain anything.

 

Step carefully young wanderer. There are wolves in these parts.

 

On the other hand, I doubt whether you guys can understand simple things such as whether the following is scientific or not,

 

Because something doesn't happen in the past such that it must not happen in the future

 

You guys swallow this statement without even a slight question. How scientific you guys are. What a joke.

[REASON]

On the other hand, I doubt whether you guys can understand simple things such as whether the following is scientific or not,

 

I assume by "the following" you are referring to the statement below. It's really not all that clear though. You may have forgotten to insert something. But I'll proceed based on my assumption.

 

You said:

 

Because something doesn't happen in the past such that it must not happen in the future

 

First of all, you should know that this is a very poorly constructed sentence which is very likely to create a lot of misunderstanding as to what it is you are trying to convey. So to criticize people if they don't understand is not only in poor taste, but is unfair.

 

Now I assume what you are trying to say is that the position of scientists (or maybe just members of this site) is that if something has not happened in the past, it will not, or cannot happen in the future. Is this what you are suggesting? If so, I can tell you that I don't see it that way, and don't believe this is the position of the scientific communtity at all.

 

But what exactly are you referring to? What evidence can you provide that this is the attitude of either the scientific community, or the members of Hypography? Your statement is very vague. Can you give us an example, with evidence, of something that hasn't happened in the past that will happen in the future? I'm sure if you do that, it'll clear things right up.

 

I can think of something that has never happened in the past that is very likely to happen tomorrow. But being the science oriented person I am, I'm skeptical about whether it is guaranteed. But I like the odds based on the evidence I've seen. :(

 

 

You guys swallow this statement without even a slight question. How scientific you guys are. What a joke.

 

You have made an assumption about how members on this site will react to your statement before anyone has even had a chance to respond, and then you do so in a highly condescending and degrading way. :eek2:

 

Not off to a very good start are we, Hawkins. You might want to reconsider your approach if it is your intention to have respectful discourse with other members here.

[InfiniteNow]

This short videa might help some people to better understand the probability issue. Enjoy. :confused:

 

YouTube - It *could* just be coincidence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98OTsYfTt-c