Intelligent design

[questor]

T-mac, you have presented voluminous, well thought out arguments for ID.

by now you can see you have changed few minds. i believe this is due to an interesting set of conditions.

1. many people cannot think of a creator without thinking of the Christian

idea of God, an ancient man-like creature surrounded by angels, living in heaven. they cannot believe in this image, so they reject creationism altogether. no matter how you explain it, they cannot dispel this image.and it is against this image they are arguing.

2. to some, everything is anthropocentric. they cannot think in terms where man is not a major factor, or at least part of the action. so they cannot think of creationism without arguing evolution.

3. to some, their mind set does not allow for change even when confronted with facts. people must use the neural pathways they have developed, (their brain wiring, if you will ). if their brains have developed in a certain way they are pretty much ''required'' to think that way. this differential brain wiring also is quite evident in politics, where two people can view the same event at the same time and come up with totally opposite conclusions and solutions.

your arguments may sway the swayable, but as you can see, the scientific

community and political pressure groups are not very open minded. they are

determined to destroy the idea of God

[Edge]

First of all, if the mathematical expression "1 in 1024" can be referred to as an "average", how do you know this "average" is calculated from only 1 million attempts? An average is always drawn from a finite pool of numbers or events. How do you know it's not calculated from 17 quadrillion attempts?

To be mathematically correct, that average is based on an hypothetical infinite attempts. 1 in 1024 is the chance of getting the right combination on each turn.

 

Probabilities like the one Edge calculated do not factor in a finite number of tries from which to get this "average" as you call it. And perhaps that's what's misleading about it. If you had 17 quadrillion total attempts, then to get an "average" distribution of 1 in 1024, you may have many stretches of even billions upon billions of unsuccessful attempts, and, to be fair, occasionally the successful attempts may be clustered together. Even if you have a million total attempts, there's no guarantee you'll hit the sequence once. Probabilities carry no guarantees.

True, probabilities are no guarantee. However, as more attempts happen there is more chance of getting a right combination. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not commiting the Gambler's fallacy if you ask me.

 

Let me explain:

 

Throw a coin 5 times and get tails on all those chances. What are the probabilities for that? (1/2)^5 = 1/32 chances.

 

Now, what are the probabilities of getting at least one head? (32/32 - 1/32) = 31/32

 

This is because there's no specific turn or number of times where head should be the result. It can be one head on the first/second/third/fourth/fifth try. Or it can be 2 heads, 3 heads up to 5 heads on total.

 

The point is, in reality, the occurrence of "GOOSE" will be distributed randomly across the total record of attempts--however many total attempts there are--which we can't even know. There is absolutely no guarantee that you'll spell the word "GOOSE" once in even a billion attempts.

Again true.

 

Again, I'm not as articulate with mathematics as I should be, so I hope I've explained that correctly. Perhaps Edge is more conversant in this area and can correct me if required.

Everything you said is true, there's no guarantee. Yet if there are many chances the probability of getting at least once the correct combination are high.

 

Which are the chances of getting a wrong combination for each try? 1023/1024

Which are the chances of getting the right combination for each try? 1/1024

 

Let's say, in 1024 tries. What are the chances of getting all the combinations wrong?

 

(1023/1024)^1024 = 0.3677...

 

 

Secondly, we're only talking about a 5-base pair sequence. We should be talking about a sequence which is something like a billion base pairs long. If it's that difficult to spell "GOOSE" at random, then as they say, "you do the math" on the billion-base-pair sequence.

True. We should set a parameter, I guess.

 

By the way, thanks for the links for the ID sites.

 

but as you can see, the scientific

community and political pressure groups are not very open minded. they are

determined to destroy the idea of God

You seem to think that they are plotting a conspiracy against religion. Well, they are not... or at least not all of them. Science - as I see it - is secular. It does not involve any god or any supreme being, nor it denies it. Science is just the explaining of the natural, physical, biological, etc. things that happen around us. Science does not create or destroy any law of physics, it just explains it. You don't need Newton to have gravity...

 

sure, science also helps to make things easier... like medicine and technology, but that's the application of science. As I said, that's how I see it... I may be wrong...

[questor]

then why is the scientific community so adamantly against including courses on ID, even though these classes would not be taught as science ? since evo

lution is a theory, why should it be taught in science classes ? genetics and mutational changes could be taught in medical or physical science classes as far as their positions have been proved, but to be fair and SCIENTIFIC, theories cannot be taught as science.

[BEAKER]

...but to be fair and SCIENTIFIC, theories cannot be taught as science.

It's not a logical argument; it's a spiritual one. And it ust goes to show that the heart of man is decietful above all things and desperately wicked.:naughty:

[TRoutMac]

T-mac, you have presented voluminous, well thought out arguments for ID. by now you can see you have changed few minds. i believe this is due to an interesting set of conditions.

 

Questor:

 

Thank you for the compliment. I agree with you that it's not likely I'll change many minds, if any. Demographically speaking, Hypography Science Forums may not be the best place to find "the swayable."

 

I've often said that it is impossible to win a rational, logical argument with irrational, illogical people. Since those people have no loyalty to reasoning in general, you cannot use reasoning to convince them and the arguments they may make against your position need not be based on logic, either. And yet, for some silly reason I occasionally insist on trying. Foolish optimism, I guess.

 

I agree completely with your three points.

 

they are determined to destroy the idea of God

 

Indeed, this is the case. Although, I would point out it isn't a genuine conspiracy. There's no smoke-filled room where the leaders of the scientific community, media and education are gathered to plot the day's deception. Rather, the "conspiracy" is carried out "unwittingly" to an extent simply because the people involved are all invested in the same way, and they all have much to lose if they are shown to be wrong. No coordination is necessary because they all know what needs to be done. Bash, twist, lie, distort, malign, etc. Whatever is necessary.

[TRoutMac]

It's not a logical argument; it's a spiritual one. And it ust goes to show that the heart of man is decietful above all things and deserately wicked.:naughty:

 

Beaker:

 

Don't get me wrong here… I'm as much a believer in the Bible as you are. But I do disagree to an extent. Where the science of this issue is concerned, it is indeed a logical argument. The evidence simply does not support evolution. Intelligent Design is entirely a rational, logical well-supported scientific theory with a rock-solid basis in logic and reason, while Darwinian macro-evolution is a complete and utter disaster both scientifically and logically.

 

That Intelligent Design does lend itself well to the support of the Biblical account is just icing on the cake. Regardless, what is a "spiritual" argument, and one that is indeed "faith-based" is the suggestion that the Intelligent Designer we're all talking about is indeed God of the Bible. It is at that point where you enter into the realm of spirituality.

 

Thank you… hope I didn't offend.

[BEAKER]

I agree with you that it's not likely I'll change many minds, if any. Demographically speaking, Hypography Science Forums may not be the best place to find "the swayable.

But ya' know - you never know who you'll "touch" in a place like this. Besides, there's a lot of very good conversation going on and I don't think christians even consider some of the thoughts that go through peoples minds. This is a good place to get a better idea what some of the newest schools of thought are; not to mention the fact that not only are there many who are "dogmatic" about their antagonism toward christianity, but there are many who are seeking answers who just might benefit from your words.:naughty:

[Edge]

then why is the scientific community so adamantly against including courses on ID, even though these classes would not be taught as science ?

They just don't want ID in Science classes. If you want to teach it, teach it on Culture classes or religion classes, whatever... not science.

 

since evo

lution is a theory, why should it be taught in science classes ?

You should know that a scientific theory is well supported by evidence. Just like relativism and quantum mechanics.

genetics and mutational changes could be taught in medical or physical science classes as far as their positions have been proved, but to be fair and SCIENTIFIC, theories cannot be taught as science.

Well, there goes relativity Theory as well...

[TRoutMac]

They just don't want ID in Science classes. If you want to teach it, teach it on Culture classes or religion classes, whatever... not science.

 

So does this mean you remain unconvinced of Intelligent Design's legitimacy as a scientific theory, or do you think it is a legitimate scientific theory but you still don't want it taught because of possible religious implications which might be drawn from it?

 

Thank you for the clarification and support on the probability issue. I guess when you factor in a finite number of tries, there must be an entirely new probability figure associated with that. For example, Erasmus said you would almost certainly spell "GOOSE" in a million tries. The question I have is, how would you calculate the probability of spelling the word "GOOSE" (using my silly little base-pair code) if you were given the base pairs at random and you only had one million attempts.? That's a completely different number, isn't it?

[Edge]

So does this mean you remain unconvinced of Intelligent Design's legitimacy as a scientific theory, or do you think it is a legitimate scientific theory but you still don't want it taught because of possible religious implications which might be drawn from it?

I'm still uncertain on that, that's one reason why I'm seeing the sites on it. Sure, we can recognize the blueprints of an intelligent designer... yet, I'm not sure if it can be considered as scientific, or to make it better... I don't know if the "blueprints" that Intelligent Design says can be considered as marks of nothing else but design.

 

For one, it seems to me that it can't be proved or falsified... not sure... at least until now, should not be taught as science. (That, if it's going to be taught, maybe I should have clarified that)

 

In other words, I'm giving it benefit of doubt.

 

Also, the movements are meant for teaching or mentioning the doubts around evolution, not to teach ID.

 

Sure, if they want to include a mentioning that there are many critics of evolution that conclude nature is very complex and specified that it seems to imply that someone or some group of alive beings designed it, then it's OK for me.

 

And if it's taught, it should be only mentioned that these things and this other things imply that someone was behind it. If a student asks: "who was/were the beings that designed it". then the teacher should say: "well, that's not included in the theory" or like you said: "we are not sure, ask your parents for that"... or something along those lines.

 

Thank you for the clarification and support on the probability issue. I guess when you factor in a finite number of tries, there must be an entirely new probability figure associated with that. For example, Erasmus said you would almost certainly spell "GOOSE" in a million tries. The question I have is, how would you calculate the probability of spelling the word "GOOSE" (using my silly little base-pair code) if you were given the base pairs at random and you only had one million attempts.? That's a completely different number, isn't it?

If it's with 1million attempts... it is almost certain that you will get it at least once.

 

If it's 1 or several in a billion with one try:

 

Sure, it's almost 0. Or practically 0.

 

It also depends on the correct combinations for creating life. Let's say it's just 1 in billions. Then obviously the chances are .0000000000000something!!! (In other words, impossible, unless a miracle were to happen)

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Paultrr:

However, inspite of all this I have no trust of any religious branding or association when it comesto something being presented as science. Religion has down through history proven itself to lie and bend the truth if it fits religions needs.

Nice response. I totally agree with you. But the situation we find ourselves in - and this probably deserves a separate thread - is that religion does serve a particular human need and science has abdicated this area of human action.

As much as we might dislike it, it serves as a framework to help us grope with our relationship to existence. "Science" has abdicated the entire spiritual realm and created Eunichs for scientists. All of the things worth living for; passion, ecstasy, joy, hope, love have been placed outside the realm of science. Science points us in the direction but the fuel to run the engine is not provided in a rational way. We either pick it up ourselves somehow or we get it from religion. It is not taken seriously (and I strongly believe that the Pat Robertsons of the world are just tickled pink at that).

In my mind, the only solution is to create a rational religion, one that reclaims the passion for life as belonging in the realm of rationality. And the symbol for that is the 'white plume' in the eyes of the child. That provides a rational standard of goodness that can be achieved in this lifetime.

[BEAKER]

...For one, it seems to me that it can't be proved or falsified...

Both creation and evolution find themselves in this strange position, but evolultion ends up with the upper hand simply because people would rather not deal with a God they cannot comprehend, so they digress into areas of tangible, material empiriscism.

 

Besides, if creation is true - it condemns their entire mindset as eroneous and false, so they press on even harder to present themselves as deeply knowledgeable about the working mechanisms of the universe through their grandeous hypothetical designs - aimed at showing the religious side as simplistic and un-professional.

[TRoutMac]

Both creation and evolution find themselves in this strange position, but evolultion ends up with the upper hand simply because people would rather not deal with a God they cannot comprehend, so they digress into areas of tangible, material empiriscism.

 

Well-said!

 

Besides, if creation is true - it condemns their entire mindset as eroneous and false, so they press on even harder to present themselves as deeply knowledgeable about the working mechanisms of the universe through their grandeous hypothetical designs - aimed at showing the religious side as simplistic and un-professional.

 

EXTREMELY well-said! Bravo!

[TRoutMac]

In my mind, the only solution is to create a rational religion, one that reclaims the passion for life as belonging in the realm of rationality. And the symbol for that is the 'white plume' in the eyes of the child. That provides a rational standard of goodness that can be achieved in this lifetime.

 

It would appear, then, that you believe that all religions, or that any religion, is merely a concoction and contrivance of mankind. A sort of "pacifier" to help us get through life feeling secure. Perhaps you believe, as many folks do, that each of us has our own personal "fairy-tale" which we can craft and shape to our liking and that my fairy tale is just as "true" as anyone else's. I have my fairy tale and you have your fairy tale.

 

Well, there are several problems with this. For one thing, I dunno about you, but I regard purposeful self-deception as extremely unhealthy. With that said, it's apparent that anyone with the view that we can merely "whip up" our own set religious beliefs and that those beliefs are just as true as any other religion is really advocating willful self-deception.

 

But even more important than that, I must make the following point, and I challenge anyone to show why I'm wrong to say this:

 

With respect to religions, (using the word "religion" in the broadest sense)either of two things must true. Either all religions are equally false, or only one religion is actually true, and all other religions are false. In other words, all religions cannot be simultaneously true. Now, this is a simple matter of logic.

 

If all religions are false, then indeed we can just fabricate a religious "fairy tale" to help us get through life. Trouble is, if we think that, we're advocating self deception.

 

If one religion is true while all others are false, then we cannot justify simply "creating" a new religion. We do not "create" truth. We discover it. Truth is already there, waiting for us to find it. We can do nothing to create it.

 

Obviously, this offends many people because they don't like the idea that their personal fairy tale might be one that's false. They feel much better if theirs is false, and so is everyone else's… so what's the big deal? They really don't like that guy over there who has the audacity to believe that his religion is the one that's true.

 

It turns out, that in many peoples' view, it's okay to believe in something, just as long as you don't actually think it's true.

[TRoutMac]

I'm still uncertain on that, that's one reason why I'm seeing the sites on it… In other words, I'm giving it benefit of doubt.

 

Fair enough. Thank you.

 

I think some of the jargon on this subject is funny… ironic. Particularly how the word "falsifiable" is used. Understand, I know this is the term that is used by the scientific community, (I'm not criticizing you for using it) and I do understand what they mean when they say something is "not falsifiable". I just think it's a horrendous choice of nomenclature. When they say that ID is "not falsifiable" they mean it in a potential, hypothetical sense. But here's what I get when I look up "falsify":

 

To state untruthfully; misrepresent.

To make false by altering or adding to: falsify testimony.

To counterfeit; forge: falsify a visa.

To declare or prove to be false.

 

So, when I hear someone say that ID is "not falsifiable" and that evolution is falsifiable, it sounds for all the world like they're saying that evolution can be proven false, therefore it's good science. See what I mean? In other words, the idea that the Earth is flat is certainly falsifiable, right? Doesn't that mean it's good science? Or, perhaps they mean that evolution can be counterfeited or forged. Which is really funny, because we've had things like piltdown man and Haeckels embryos which have been shown to be "falsifications".

 

And, conversely, they say that ID is "not" falsifiable, therefore it's NOT scientific. Which sounds to me like since we know ID is true, it's not science.

 

Please understand me here… I'm really just having a little fun with the language here. I understand what they really mean, and that they don't mean the things I said above. But doesn't that make it an awful choice of terminology?

 

Also, the movements are meant for teaching or mentioning the doubts around evolution, not to teach ID.

 

Well, the Discovery Institute is not ready to advocate the teaching of ID, and they certainly are the leader in the ID movement. They actually opposed the Dover Area School Board's move in this regard. They applaud the state of Kansas' decision to teach the weaknesses of evolution, though. So, in that sense you're exactly right… you've expressed the Discovery Institute's agenda. I tend to disagree with them on this, however… not that it matters! I would like to see ID taught.

[BEAKER]

...I have my fairy tale and you have your fairy tale...anyone with the view that we can merely "whip up" our own set religious beliefs and that those beliefs are just as true as any other religion is really advocating willful self-deception... this is a simple matter of logic.

 

We do not "create" truth. We discover it. Truth is already there, waiting for us to find it. We can do nothing to create it...They really don't like that guy over there who has the audacity to believe that his religion is the one that's true.

 

It turns out, that in many peoples' view, it's okay to believe in something, just as long as you don't actually think it's true.

How totally profound!:naughty:

 

Now with all that basic undeniable plain-as-the nose on your face, rock solid truth out of the way; many will want to get back to the pressing matter of self denial, and higher IQ investigation and proliferation of peripheral earthly/celestial penomonon; as we who regard any so-called asolutes are relegated to the bottom rung of relevant thought.

 

How sad for them.

 

It's so nice to be able to trust in a God whos thoughts are as far above our own as the heavens are above the earth, without feeling like it's a blow to our ego, or a declaration of stupidity.

 

You go TRoutMac!!!:naughty:

[Erasmus00]

With respect to religions, (using the word "religion" in the broadest sense)either of two things must true. Either all religions are equally false, or only one religion is actually true, and all other religions are false. In other words, all religions cannot be simultaneously true. Now, this is a simple matter of logic.

 

Actually, your logic falls into the same all or none trap to which a lot of your ID arguments fall prey. You ignore all the shades of grey. Maybe all religions have different degrees of truth. One gets it mostly right, a few more get some different things right, etc. The classic blind wisemen groping at an elephant analogy.

-Will