Intelligent Design Vs Chance

[CCoburn]

Intelligent Design Vs Chance


I believe this to be part of a larger picture, but it can serve as entry point to a topic of interest for the time being while likely spawning other relevant threads.

This need not be a "one or the other" type scenario either but there could exist a sequence of events where these are part and parcel of a greater scheme of things such as existence and non(negative existence).

Just as mathematics implements an "order of operations" so may existence and a lack thereof.

It has been stated recently that there is "zero evidence" of intelligent design, but how can one observe any "evidence" if they cannot even properly define the anomaly in question that would yield such evidence?

Perhaps in attempting to define and possibly even understand this intelligent design anomaly, if it exists, it might also be productive in attempting to understand the parameters of its existence as well as non-existence if that is the case.

So there it is again and could have been written a hundred different ways. Intelligent design versus chance or perhaps a sequencing of both as components of a core cosmological order.

[FlyersFan]

It has been stated recently that there is "zero evidence" of intelligent design, ...

The fact that you exist is evidence of intelligent design.   The balance of the universe, when in fact it should naturally be drawn to chaos, is evidence of intelligent design.  The fine tuning of the universe, against all odds, to bring forth life and order and balance points to intelligent design.  etc etc

Discovery - Six Top Lines of Evidence for Intelligent Design

The following gives a sense of the degree of fine-tuning that must go into some of these values to yield a life-friendly universe:

• Gravitational constant: 1 part in 10^34
  
• Electromagnetic force versus force of gravity: 1 part in 10^37
  
• Cosmological constant: 1 part in 10^120
  
• Mass density of universe:  1 part in 10^59
  
• Expansion rate of universe: 1 part in 10^55
  
• Initial entropy:  1 part in 10^ (10^123)
  

The last item in the list — the initial entropy of the universe — shows an astounding degree of fine-tuning. What all this shares is an incredible, astronomically precise, purposeful care and planning that went into the crafting of the laws and constants of the universe, gesturing unmistakably to intelligent design.

Atheists say that there is no evidence of intelligent design.  They see only what they want to see.  Atheistic scientific explanations for everything existing and working in such a perfect way naturally come up short.  That being said, an intelligent designer would be the author of science and science law.  That is Gods signature.   But pretending that there is no evidence of intelligent design, I still would say 'so what?  For the caveman there was no evidence that they could see of human blood types ... yet blood types exist.  If there is no perceivable smoking gun, it would only be because we aren't smart enough to be able to figure it out yet.

[K218b]

... stated by a militant atheist.

The fact that you exist is evidence of intelligent design.   The balance of the universe, when in fact it should naturally be drawn to chaos, is evidence of intelligent design.  The fine tuning of the universe, against all odds, to bring forth life and order and balance points to intelligent design.  etc etc

Discovery - Six Top Lines of Evidence for Intelligent Design


Atheists say that there is no evidence of intelligent design.  They see only what they want to see.  Atheistic scientific explanations for everything existing and working in such a perfect way naturally come up short.  That being said, an intelligent designer would be the author of science and science law.  That is Gods signature.   But pretending that there is no evidence of intelligent design, I still would say 'so what?  For the caveman there was no evidence that they could see of human blood types ... yet blood types exist.  If there is no perceivable smoking gun, it would only be because we aren't smart enough to be able to figure it out yet.

The fact we exist is evidence of intelligent design?!
Says who?You need much more than an assertion of faith and some links that promote creationism online and offline.

There is no fine tuning either just as there is no sign of a creator and has never been. Scientifically speaking.

I don't understand why the link you gave in your post provided some of the natural constants as an argument in favor of a creator. I thought when religious people want to argue about god it's usually the Old Testament that goes first in the battle which is a wonderful piece of Theology and science-free.

[schuyler]

Intelligent Design boils down to the argument that if we can't figure out how it was done, then God must have done it.

I'm not impressed.

[K218b]

Intelligent Design boils don to the argument that if we can't figure out how it was done, then God must have done it.

I'm not impressed.

It's called an argument from ignorance. I don't know if you have come across the term before but basically you postulate the existence of a supernatural creator because you can't give another explanation.

[Maxmars]

The key word in the argument is not "design," it's "creator," that's what twinges the dissent.  I find that almost ironic.

Since humans model everything, by what I believe is a species compulsion along side "communicate," it appears that any allusion to a divine entity rubs the wrong way.  Some might postulate that a "designer" is not so outrageous a likelihood, since we clearly can see infer the mechanics well enough to render denial into oblivion.  Others may see that such a 'creation' mentality is a surrender of some kind, as if that meant there were unattainable 'secrets' beyond our understanding.  As if the consideration automatically renders the materialistic approach as insufficient.

Well, the truth be told, the materialistic approach to reality is, in fact, insufficient.  That can be stated because we don't know everything that is knowable.  If it were sufficient we would know everything. 

The mathematical disharmony required for the universe to have 'spontaneously' manifested as it is, is tantamount to faith, of no less magnitude than simply 'believing' in a creator.

I'm uncertain that either 'side' of the argument can successfully resolve the matter.

It is not impossible that the universe is a spontaneous manifestation of some sort... and it is not impossible that there was, or have been, or are, elements of design in the set of circumstances that are in our universe.  But within the group of all things "not impossible," is an entire universe of possibilities.

[CCoburn]

I actually refrain from using the "God" terminology much of the time because undoubtedly people will get the wrong idea. Most will likely associate the term with the personal Abrahamic type God and this just isn't (specifically) the case in the context of my own writing. I'm not an atheist, and I'm not a theist either in a conventional sense. I might be a deist - Einstein was a deist. On a sliding scale I'd be somewhere around the midway point between atheist and theist maybe leaning a bit more towards theist.

Like Maxmars reiterated several times "We don't know everything." and that's perfectly fine and there's nothing wrong with that, so I use 'placeholders' as part of any hypothesis much in the same way that "i" the imaginary unit is used as a placeholder in mathematics to denote a negative root - an imaginary number.

When the larger picture is taken into consideration here which to me would be eternity and all that is encapsulated by it, God isn't the only anomaly or absurdity. With contemporary expansion/inflation theories there are spatial and/or spatiotemporal negations and emergence from those. There are absurdities/contradictions involving spatial and temporal parameters/boundaries.

A primordial or eternal God/anomaly isn't the only absurdity here, but it's the most well-known one. These are very extreme conditions/circumstances presented here, so it does seem fitting that their attempted resolutions might require extreme measures which any scientific minded individual or one seeking concrete proof/evidence is likely to scoff at - you get used to it.

It is difficult if not impossible though to remain exclusively true to the thread title here like the other thread as there are multiple aspects all intimately related with one another that go beyond the mundane, traditional ways of thinking/processing, and ultimately beyond science itself.

[TheRedneck]

The deeper I dig into science, the mire I realize that there must be a creator.

That statement has been spoken, in similar words, quite often in the past, sometimes by very learned men. It is usually taken as either a direct affront to science or an invitation to spread theology. Yet, I see it as neither.

The simple fact is that any statement concerning the nature of creation* can be twisted around to be either of the choices mentioned above. But typically, at least in my experience, neither choice typically reflects the intent. Instead, the arguments I mentioned, whether they be toward science or religion, are themselves based in ignorance of the other.

(*Creation is an appropriate term here, because there is no disagreement that what we see around us was created. The question is whether it was created by random chance and natural forces or by a supreme being.)

Science is a search for knowledge; religion is a search for wisdom. Knowledge is not wisdom, and wisdom is not knowledge. I can know, for example, much about how to program a computer... and still be incapable of writing a program that fulfills the needs and wants of the public at large. I can harbor knowledge, but lack the wisdom to use it properly. Likewise, I can have the wisdom to understand what is needed, but lack the knowledge to implement it. Both are needed for progress, and neither invalidates the other. Knowledge and wisdom are in fact, complimentary.

Here's where the ignorance comes in:

Those who reject Creationalism typically do so based on the fact that they believe Creationalism is some unevidenced concept that ignores the scientific method in an effort to prove the writings of a book, by any means necessary. It is not. As a matter of fact, there are quite a few aspects to Creationalism, and few if any have a consistent following. Creationalism looks to the Bible and other manuscripts from that era, and considers these writings as eye witness accounts. This is because these writings tend to support each other across millennia, across many multiple authors, and across many different aspects of creation. The data from present scientific knowledge is then applied to these writings and attempts are made to explain the creation of the universe based on this.

In contrast, the various scientific approaches take information from writings generally appearing in the last few centuries and authored by scientists, writings which agree with each other across centuries, across many different authors, and across many different aspects of creation. The data is then examined and attempts are made to explain the creation of the universe based on this.

OK, on second thought, not so different after all. The only real difference is the source of the written information.

Creationalism gets a bad name precisely because it is misunderstood, even by creationalists. It is a developing theory that has been vilified to such a degree that it is basically an underground movement instead of a fully thought-out and reasoned theory. Such movements tend to be misinterpreted by laymen. The vilification is distinctly unscientific: it presumes that everything knowable is already known and the "science is settled," which is the exact opposite of the scientific method upon which all science is based.

Scientific theories tend to get disdain from Creationalists (or more properly from the religious) because science refuses to examine that one body of writing in any way whatsoever, and tends to make statements declaring that science itself has proved a negative (a scientific impossibility in itself): there is no God. That is a statement that is purely unscientific. We cannot possibly devise an experiment to determine if an intelligent being exists, especially one who is, if extant, orders of magnitude more intelligent than we are by definition. Either way one chooses to believe on that subject, it is an opinion based on faith.

A common statement from those who wish to discount Creationalism is "show me the proof!" To that I respond, "Show me yours." All scientific theory concerning the Big Bang is purely theoretical. Yes, we can prove, using frequency shift observations from astronomical phenomenon around us, that the universe is expending based on present observations. Based on that, one would expect that all of the universe would have, at one time, been compressed into a singularity. However, suspicion is not proof. It is possible that the expansion we observe now is only a small part of a larger cyclical pattern. It is possible the expansion began from something larger than a singularity. There are actually many possibilities that could explain the origin of the universe as we know it; we have chosen the Big Bang Theory as what we believe is the most probable.

Most probable is not proof. It is at best evidence.

TheRedneck