jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (145 posts)

"Intelligent Design, while real in the history of science...

  1. Zelkiiro profile image83
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    ...while real in the presence of sort-of philosophical drivers, is, nonetheless, a philosophy of ignorance."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epLhaGGjfRw&t=00m19s

    An extremely interesting and enlightening look at the history of science and the gradual phasing out of religiosity in it, featuring the incredible Neil deGrasse Tyson. I've saved you the sorrow of sitting through the first 19 seconds, wherein the video's uploader just shoved in a disgustingly obnoxious intro, so you're welcome.

  2. janesix profile image60
    janesixposted 3 years ago

    It's ok. The truth will come out eventually.

    Sooner rather than later.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image83
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, and Intelligent Design will finally be gone for good, to be replaced with knowledge and reason.

      1. Silverspeeder profile image61
        Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Only if the knowledge is complete and reliable.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And is possible to be reliable while contradicting your predetermined beliefs?  Or does that automatically make it false?

        2. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Considering the "knowledge" is based on factual evidence and not on ancient book of myths and superstitions, it should be reliable. It will be complete given time. Until then, the question is whether or not one clings to books of myths and superstitions as those books are on the decline as far as verifiable or credible knowledge is concerned.

          1. Silverspeeder profile image61
            Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I don't need to refer to an ancient book to know or understand what I believe in. Those who use religious dogma and myth to explain why they believe we were made not evolved have little understanding of either.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image59
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Hate to burst your bubble, but your religious beliefs are based entirely on those very myths and superstitions.

              1. Silverspeeder profile image61
                Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Hate to burst your bubble but your evolutionary beliefs are based on the writings of a man who disagreed with is bible bashing father.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  That's pretty silly and has absolutely no basis in fact. Evolution, on the other hand is based on facts and evidence.

                  Your ridiculous explanation would have the entire scientific community believing that evolution is a fact because they too disagree with Darwin's "bible bashing father". Hilarious. lol

                  1. Silverspeeder profile image61
                    Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Many people before Darwin had doubts about their origin but it was he that come up with some fantastic idea about us all coming from nothing.
                    There are no real answers in evolution only more questions, which is pretty hilarious when scientists keep coming up with other fantastic non provable ideas to explain the gaping holes. The only thing they haven't been tempted to explain is macro-evolution which even the most intelligent of them steers clear from. No answers to the fundamental question shows me  personally that they haven't worked it out because they can't.

                    Oh and not the whole scientific community believes evolution has the answers, most believe there is far more work to do.

                  2. janesix profile image60
                    janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    ATM, your quaint close-mindedness is totally endearing. It's like watching a toddler stumbling around before he learns to walk.

        3. 0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Define "complete". Define "reliable".  Complete suggests things are done and all is known. Complete is anathema to science. Reliable is a qualtitative term, and as such, not quantifiable and not scientific.

          The question for science to move from hypothesis to theory rests on whether or not others can replicate work and arrive at the same conclusions.

          1. Silverspeeder profile image61
            Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So results of testing don't have to be reliable then, they just have to show the test shows what the tester wants it to show, as indeed carbon dating does.

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Obviously not. Please read my comment. The scientific standard is REPLICATION of findings which is a much stronger requirement than a qualitative notion of the reliability of one test and one set of findings.

  3. 0
    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago

    The history of science is a history of what Thomas Kuhn called shifts in the "dominant [scientific] paradigm. These shifts allow, for example, for the history of science to include conflicting paradigms such as "intelligent design" and the Big Bang Theory.

    And these shifts when understood and embraced by not only the scientific community, but the larger public, become the stuff of scientific revolutions. Among these: these shifts which eventually became revolutions: movement from geocentrism to heliocentrism; movement from a biblical understanding of creation to evolution; movement from static universe to an expanding universe.

    1. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      . . . from classical physics to quantum physics, which looks indistinguishable from magic (quantum entanglement) and from quantum physics to digital physics (which suggests that all the meta-data underlying the universe is calculated in some layer beyond time and space and rendered in what we call reality).

      1. 0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Arthur C. Clarke said it best:

        “Magic's just science that we don't understand yet.”

        1. Don W profile image84
          Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Absolutely. Or to look at it differently, is science only now catching up to what people have already intuitively believed through history. As Shakespeare put it, "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

          Although we cannot accept "knowledge" that does not have a rigorous scientific basis, should we be so quick to dismiss it as useless when science is discovering phenomena that appear to match descriptions of what we would historically call "magic" and "miracles"?

        2. Silverspeeder profile image61
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That would make Steven Frayne the greatest scientist ever.

  4. Ericdierker profile image80
    Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago

    What a marvelous notion. When man knows everything he will have no need for God. I like that. I think it is very accurate. I think that if someone really has a problem with that thought they must be very insecure.
    While I marvel at things natural I do not need God to explain them. While I am in awe of life and all the wonderful things included herein I do not need God to explain them.

    I only need God for those matters beyond my comprehension. I sure am glad we do not know everything and no one ever will. Maybe as a society we will in the conglomerate. But no man will ever know everything.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image59
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That would be a problem, not a solution.



      Why not? Are you opposed to knowledge?

      1. Ericdierker profile image80
        Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oh no not at all. Somethings are just impossible for us at this time. Somethings we just do not know. That pesky time/space continuum and things in peoples brains and the deepest parts of space and the ocean.
        If I already knew who was going to win the Allstar game tonight what fun would that be?

        1. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well, had not religion ruled our world for so many centuries, we might be visiting other planets by now and have a huge volume of knowledge. Unfortunately, religion poisons everything.

          1. Ericdierker profile image80
            Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            But don't you see where this started and the point Tyson could not get around. Money and knowledge we will never have enough or all of it. So there will always be that kind of frontier where man cannot go beyond. That is where a notion of God starts and logic is lost. The unknown will always be there and in that space Intelligent design is just as noble as science.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              But if the "frontier" is only imaginary and does not actually exist?  Is it still "noble"?

            2. A Troubled Man profile image59
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, but your religion does not go beyond the mythical, it is not some glorious frontier where logic is lost and the dogma is noble. It is merely the ramblings of men, who most likely had mental disorders.

              1. Ericdierker profile image80
                Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Are you saying wilderness that Galaxies unknown to us, that the beginning of life is explained or it is imaginary. Things that exist but we do not know of are not imaginary --- deepest part of the oceans, the god particle.
                ATM I never mentioned religion -- that is your anti crusade. My thoughts do not come from religion they come from faith. Many of my thoughts come from faith in science and empiricism and many from belief in spirituality and God.
                You two know you cannot explain everything. So why not let us explain it ---- NO NOT RELIGION  but  People.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I have seen very little in your posts to indicate anything scientific, but plenty of faith based myths.



                  So what? Why is that a problem for you?

                  1. Ericdierker profile image80
                    Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I am sorry. Name one myth I ascribed to. You cannot.

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Unknown does not mean unknowable.  You clearly indicate that there are things that man can never know - the response is intended to reject that notion as well as the idea that made up "things" such as gods, other universes and the supernatural are somehow "noble" to think about.

                  As far as when god starts being the place where logic (and reason) ends, well, that's just silly.  When made up but unsupported explanations are accepted as truth it isn't "noble" somehow - it's just silly.

                  1. Ericdierker profile image80
                    Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I do not think Claudius Ptolemy was silly. And he knew knowledge would expand just like you and I do. Not where logic and reason end, where scientific knowledge ends.
                    Where does the energy for love and spiritualism come from. Scientifically we no there is an increase of energy in the body, but we do not know how it is produced. To say that it is a force like love would not be scientific but very logical and rational. And the leap that God is Love is just as sound as love is chemicals and neurons but we do not know really.

  5. 0
    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago

    Darwin posited evolution of species over time and from common ancestors. Never did Darwin claim or make any case for spontaneous generation of life.  What specific ideas---real ideas from the scientific literature of evolutionary biology, rather than the imagined  ideas of those who know little or nothing about the science of evolution are "fantastic"?

  6. karthikkash profile image87
    karthikkashposted 3 years ago

    I disagree that Intelligent design is a myth. Intelligent design is a well researched theory as much as the evolution theory. There are certain clarifications required before that.

    1) When we talk about creation and Intelligent design, we are not talking about the Biblical god who created the universe, earth, heaven and hell. That is pure myth, dogmatic and has no evidence whatsoever. However, world history and far more ancient texts from far older civilizations have verifiable proof (albeit, the proof is "available" majority in texts). The creation "proof" and "debunking the myth" comes from scientists, atheists and religious people taking Bible and Christianity as the basis for everything, which unfortunately a myopic view. It is like saying, "Bible says this, but there is no evidence. Hence there is no god" or "Bible says this and it is the only truth". Are any of those scientists aware that there were Vedic, Egyptian and Sumerian cultures which were far more culturally and technologically advanced even before Rome was born? How many people even know that the major part of Bible was borrowed from these same ancient cultures that existed for at least 7000-9000 years?

    2) While evolution is an undeniable fact and was scientifically proven by Darwin (there were earlier proponents of evolution), evolution of humans from apes was never proposed by him whatsoever. It is a well documented historical fact that though he proved evolution and natural selection, he did NOT apply it to human beings. It was done by his close associate (sorry, I don't remember the name. I guess it was Wallace who extrapolated it to humans). It is said that this extrapolation was never approved by Darwin. Secondly, there is no evidence till date about the "missing link" between apes and humans. Every "evidence" that came up has been successfully debunked. That just makes apes close relatives to humans and the theory of evolution of humans from apes just another theory, a theory as good as "Intelligent design".

    5) We often say that ancient people were cave dwellers, hunters and gatherers. If we consider that, humans of those ages should have very low IQ (if we go by mainstream science). They should have documented what they saw, with just the ability of a copy cat and a bit of imagination. They shouldn't be highly creative as to create elaborate stories which ran for thousands of pages. Doesn't it mean that the evidences in scriptures, stones or cave paintings show exactly what they saw or "thought" what they saw? Are we saying that hundreds of cultures had a conference at a distant past (more than 10,000 years ago) at the center of the earth and decided how to write similar stories with minor differences? Absolutely ridiculous!!

    4) When one considers evolution, it is well known that evolution happens over millions of years and cannot happen within a few thousand years. Also, intelligent design is neither purely "creation" nor "evolution". Unfortunately Intelligent design has been reduced to religious books as "creation" than a scientific theory. There is scientific evidence which states that out of the 24 pairs of chromosomes which may have come from apes, only 23 are native and one pair was external (one pair of chromosome not created in the body. Evolution cannot add something new, but can only modify the existing DNA or chromosome). Ever wonder where this 24th pair came from, if it wasn't created inside the body?

    4) History may have been garbled up and much evidence may have been destroyed over 7,000-10,000 years due to floods, wars and what not? But, a myth or a legend comes from true facts that are just messed up over ages (in this case, thousands of years). Asking for "hard evidence" in that case would border foolishness. Lack of "available evidence" doesn't mean that they didn't exist in the first place. That may hold up in the legal system, but not science and research. However, if you want "evidence", one must naturally go to historic documents, which were nothing but scriptures (if one can quote from scientific journal, one has equal right to quote from ancient scriptures). Ever wonder why more than 200 non-connected cultures across the world have similar deluge stories and similar gods who created us? Yet, we have the audacity and arrogance to call them mumbo-jumbo even without doing a proper research about these cultures, myths and their scriptures.     

    5) There is nothing "divine" or "godly" about intelligent design. It is pure science. Ever heard of cloning or stem cell regeneration? If humans can do it to sheep and lab rats, are we absolutely sure that we won't be able to actually create a new life form (sounds to me like we are gods if we do that. And there may be temples, mosques and churches to worship us). Is there a guarantee that we were not lab mice for an extra-terrestrial civilization? So, is intelligent design a myth even then? And before someone says there are no extra-terrestrials, you may want to read on "Drake's equation" which is the basis for SETI and NASA's workings (or even Dr. Stephen H Dole).

    1. 0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Okay...

      So who exactly is the intelligent designer then? Are you subscribing to so-called "Ancient Alien" theory?

      1. karthikkash profile image87
        karthikkashposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        In one word, Yes.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image83
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well, at least you're honest about it. Most Creationists stutter endlessly and look shocked and horrified when you substitute God for aliens in Intelligent Design.

          1. karthikkash profile image87
            karthikkashposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks. That is because all the Creationists take Bible and the Talmud as their basis. The Bible itself was blatantly copied from other texts. It was also a simple mish-mash of other scriptures. There was no originality in the Bible except for the life of Jesus (there are now questions being raised whether someone named Jesus existed at all). It was a concocted story which is wrong and illogical on so many levels. At least, one would expect the Church to make it a believable story. Unfortunately, it wasn''t. When that happens, there is no thought that goes into it. Naturally, when a scientific research is done, it falls on its face. All they can think about are two words: Blasphemy and evil, when someone starts questioning it.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ah, then perhaps you have a theory as to where the "Ancient Aliens" came from? Did they evolve or were they created by other aliens?

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Aliens work is mysterious ways.

            1. karthikkash profile image87
              karthikkashposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              probably not more mysterious than the bipedal creature called "Homo Sapien" which walked on moon and planned to walk on Mars big_smile

          2. karthikkash profile image87
            karthikkashposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            the Egyptian, Dogon (African tribe), Sumerian and the Indian cultures all point towards the Orion's belt, specifically star systems of Sirius A and B (which are now receiving special attention by astronomers especially after the shocking discovery of the Dogon tribe as well as the pyramids of Giza which resemble the Orion's belt), Pleiades and few other star systems. All these are star systems close to our solar system and galaxy. The Vedas talk about the exact 7 major star systems that make up the Orion constellation (they called them 7 great sages. How did the ancients know about these star systems at least 7,000-8,000 years ago when the first telescope was invented only during the 15th century?). The same stars are also available in Sumerian texts probably as old as Vedic texts. Of course, the names are quite different. This is just the beginning.

            The notable thing is that the ancient civilizations didn''t document them as scientific journals or data, but more in terms of stories, rituals and traditions. For example, the hieroglyphics inside the pyramids of Giza and some of the Hindu rituals and traditions which are alive even today.

            1) These ancient civilizations either didn't have the necessity of writing them (did they rely on mental power and thought writing hinders mental power?) or they simply didn't have writing material till the discovery of papyrus. The only way of passing historical data then would be to pass them down as stories and traditions simply because stories and rituals are easier to remember and practice, while dates and facts may be easily forgotten. People may forget the source of data, but stories and traditions will be remembered forever which themselves preserve the data.

            2) The history and stories carved on stones last for thousands of years or even for eternity while what is written on paper can be easily destroyed (see the cave paintings preserved after thousands of years). So, when the hieroglyphics were drawn on the walls of Giza, the idea may have been exactly the same. To save the documents for posterity.   

            Now, did aliens evolve or were they created by someone else? It is probably as good as a question as the origins of universe itself big_smile

            1. A Troubled Man profile image59
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, but none of that is evidence of anything regarding ancient aliens.



              The answer to this question is obvious.

              If aliens created us and some other aliens created them, and so on and so on... then, we have turtles upon turtles upon turtles all the way down, and we continue wondering where that first turtle appeared.

              So, if the first turtle evolved as opposed to being created by another turtle, then we can easily conclude that we too evolved.

              Simple, really.

              1. karthikkash profile image87
                karthikkashposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That is just one way of looking it. A theory is called a theory because it isn't proved beyond shadow of doubt. The theory of intelligent design never claimed that evolution didn't happen. That is why I said that it was neither purely creation nor was it purely evolution. It just says that humans evolved but it was accelerated and it was directed in a particular direction by non-earthly beings.

                "So, if the first turtle...". I agree. And that holds true for intelligent design as well (if one alien race created another and they created another and so on). Unless either of the theories are proved beyond a shadow of doubt, both are equally weighed theories having their own evidences, and neither becomes a law till then.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No, a theory is called a theory because it has undergone many tests and found to be correct based on the results. It can then make valid predictions of other phenomena.



                  There is zero evidence for that acceleration. None whatsoever. Hence Intelligent Design is not a theory, by definition. It is nothing more than an assertion based on incredulity.



                  You seem to be missing the point. Somewhere along the line, those aliens must have originated from somewhere, hence they must have evolved, and if they evolved, then there is no reason to suspect we didn't evolve. Understand?

                  1. Ericdierker profile image80
                    Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I just love the Alien notion. It really makes clear evolution has to occur and it still does not answer what created them? The only concept of man that does not require a beginning and an end, is that hard to handle notion of omnipresent and or alpha/omega. Per science everything must have a "life", a beginning and end. Or at least a transformation into other matter. But that still cannot explain where those aliens began.

                  2. A Thousand Words profile image80
                    A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Evolved from what? What was the starting point and how did it exist?

  7. A Thousand Words profile image80
    A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago

    Honestly, this whole argument really relies on whether or not someone believes that something can exist without being created. Many people who do not believe in gods/deities believe that it can. Deists/theists also believe that it can, actually (many believe God exists in an infinite reality and self-exists outside of time). I honestly couldn't say. It might be vanity for both sides trying to say that it definitely was or definitely wasn't created. My rational side says that it's impossible to prove, and so I do not declare to the following opinion to be fact.

    I do believe that it is possible that the Universe itself may be "intelligent," if you will, but I wouldn't give it any anthropomorphic properties. It self exists, as theists believe God does. It is all matter, energy. From it everything exists, and natural processes happen as they happen. (Natural selection, evolution, etc.) I see it as being similar to the Tao, actually. A little bit of Tao, a little bit like Brahman, but no supernatural/metaphysical deification.

    I know there can be no facts to back it up. And honestly, this whole conversation is moot.

 
working