Intelligent Design

[Darat]

...snip...

In China, the strict rules against corruption and crime are enabling them to rise dramatically. If they relax to permit "Western capitalism" with it's lack of restraint then they may also have chaos.

Of all the factless stuff you spew that has to be amongst the funniest ever - you think corruption in China is less than in "Western capitalism"!!

 

[Kumar]

Silicon is very limited in chemical properties. Organic chemistry has a huge branch all to itself.

.

I don't know, how it is relevant but in one system, silicon based agent is related to majority of disorders.

 

[acbytesla]

You seem to have a huge misunderstanding of the law of causality. It says for every effect there must be a cause. Not that every piece of matter requires a creator. In fact, there is EVERY reason to believe that all the matter and energy in the universe is a constant and has ALWAYS existed and the form of the universe is just the result of that interaction between that matter and energy.

As Laplace said 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là'

That is old world scientific thinking that got a real jolt when it turned out the the Big Bang happened. Atheists were thrown into turmoil by a "creation-type" event.

EVERY? Why I have I not come across one reason for your belief?

ALWAYS? Define always. Some say time did not exist before the Big Bang.

Sorry, you're wrong. And your inability to come up with reasons for the belief that energy/matter is a constant demonstrates either a lack of education or imagination or both. Start with the law of conservation of matter and think about it some more.

How was the universe created if physics states matter can neither be created nor destroyed?
http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physics-answer.cfm?uid=20120221015143

There are a significant number of physicists that believe that the universe is a closed system with an energy/matter constant.

BTW, there is no reason to believe the Big Bang is a creation event any more than mitosis is a creation event.

Time is trickier. Time as we know it. It is the proverbial tree in the forest as the concept of time requires perspective.

Also, the possibility of creation doesn't throw atheists into turmoil. I currently don't believe in a supernatural being, but if proof of one is provided I certainly won't deny it. But, I would like to point out one thing though. Even if creation is proved, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that any human's present concept of that creator is correct. It's no more likely to be say Yahweh then it is Zeus.

 

[I Am The Scum]

What the fine-tuning argument says that if the initial conditions are just right (a glass formed with the right internal stresses) and the glass is dropped just so, then the shards produced could be amazing shapes that would not otherwise be seen in gazillions of glass dropping experiments. That is what is "remarkable".

So are you acknowledging that every single shard of a dropped glass is intelligently designed? Even if the glass fell over because of a gust of wind?

 

[acbytesla]

You continue to insult me with rude ad hominems that contribute nothing to the debate. Do you have some sort of anal/excrement fixation?

You prefer a deistic creator because you can attack it better using the argument of perfection. Using the argument of perfection is useless against my hypothesis that the Ultimate Creator is neither good nor evil and has created two opposing super-entities - God and Satan.

My hypothesis fits the facts better than a deistic creator.

Please, I'm not insulting you. Only your practice of making it up.

Also, I'm not sure what your hypothesis for a creator is. Perhaps you have posted it, but I may have missed it or I simply don't recall. If it is the Abrahamic or any God I studied in my comparative religions course than no, your hypothesis doesn't fit the facts better.

Maybe I should have been more specific. I don't believe in a creator at all. I think it is a human fabrication. I prefer the idea of a deistic creator as opposed to the theistic creators that are claimed by the different religions I'm familiar with. But not for the reasons you propose.The Abrahamic God is horrible....as well as stupid. Yes..stupid. so are the other gods I've read about. For example, let's consider the story of Jesus. God comes down in human form as his son (wth?) to sacrifice himself to himself (for a weekend) for rules that he made up. DUMB!

With regard to misery, the anti-deistic stance can be equated to "Without God, everything is permitted." On what do you base your high-horse moral stance?

This of course nonsense. Morals don't come from on high. Not even from you. If you think Jews, Christians or Muslims or frankly any religion get their morals from their concept of God, you are deluded.

For the sake of this argument, let's say you believe in the Abrahamic God. My bet is you don't keep slaves, you wouldn't stone someone for laboring on the Sabbath and you wouldn't kill your child for being unruly. I'd bet you don't keep more than a couple of God's 613 laws handed to Moses. Every religious person I have ever met picks and chooses which laws they will obey and which ones they will disregard. Out of the decalog only 2 are actual laws.

If we get are morals from God, why are man's laws so different? No morals come from the need to live cooperatively.

 

[acbytesla]

A lizard (or any other creature) lacks all the attributes needed to evolve intelligence. Humans are supremely adaptable, versatile, able to use the environment. Lizards are able to survive and procreate and not much else

False. What makes you think that lizards lack intelligence and are incapable of thought? What about dogs, dolphins, whales, elephants, chimpanzees or crows?

 

[MikeG]

A lizard (or any other creature) lacks all the attributes needed to evolve intelligence......

You have no idea that this is true. No one does. Evolution works with what it has got, and if there is a niche, it will be filled, and it will be filled by whatever is available to fill it. Intelligence is expensive in energy terms, and that may be why our version of it appears to have only evolved once, but the "wouldn't start from here" argument NEVER, but never, applies to evolution.

 

[Donn]

Are you opining that intelligence equal to ours was only possible in the path actually taken? That seems to require a lot of hubris.

Once parted from being skeptical, hubris abounds.

 

[Donn]

Funny, but that is my position. That you (and others) have fixed beliefs and cannot see other possibilities.

I will happily take a possibility that ends in "I don't know" over your exhausted platitudes.

All your pomp and bluster ends in the same swamp: It's all anecdote. It requires faith. Special exceptions. Flaw and fallacy.

You post only over the dead body of your cause. Every time you reply to divert attention, you must stab it one more time.

 

[The Sparrow]

False. What makes you think that lizards lack intelligence and are incapable of thought? What about dogs, dolphins, whales, elephants, chimpanzees or crows?

And Octopii. (Octopusses? Octopie ? ) Very cool watching one of those massively alien creatures open a jar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG6JebW63f4

Clever boy!

I imagine you PS will move the goalpoasts though and claim that is not 'real' intelligence.

 

[acbytesla]

And Octopii. (Octopusses? Octopie ? ) Very cool watching one of those massively alien creatures open a jar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG6JebW63f4

Clever boy!

I imagine you PS will move the goalpoasts though and claim that is not 'real' intelligence.

Good one. They are so cool!

And sadly, probably yes.

 

[Aridas]

Clearly I feel that the trend away from a fear of the possibility of judgment in the afterlife may very well result in the situation that everything is permitted and society will tear itself apart.

The valid underlying concept that you're likely thinking of is that if one takes away an artificial restraint, things will likely become less constrained. The distinct irrationality in your fear, though, is that there are many other and much better supported restraints in play. You fear throwing the baby out with the bathwater and have chosen to effectively object to even taking the baby out of the bathwater. Feel free to consider bathing the baby with bathwater to have been a good thing, though, however much leaving a baby in bathwater indefinitely would be bad for the baby.

In China, the strict rules against corruption and crime are enabling them to rise dramatically. If they relax to permit "Western capitalism" with it's lack of restraint then they may also have chaos.

Well... the thing about corruption and China is that it's still really bad. Better than it was, perhaps, but still bad. Your hypothetical about "Western capitalism" is of remarkably limited value, though, given the many other relevant factors in play, not least being the various cultural and governmental differences. For example, the actual soft power that government officials hold outside their direct area of employment tends to be notably different.

 

[acbytesla]

The valid underlying concept that you're likely thinking of is that if one takes away an artificial restraint, things will likely become less constrained. The distinct irrationality in your fear, though, is that there are many other and much better supported restraints in play. You fear throwing the baby out with the bathwater and have chosen to effectively object to even taking the baby out of the bathwater. Feel free to consider bathing the baby with bathwater to have been a good thing, though, however much leaving a baby in bathwater indefinitely would be bad for the baby.

The idea promoted by the religious that the world will go to hell in a handbasket without God is simply not supported by the evidence. In fact, all the available evidence proves exactly the opposite. That by far, the best thing humanity could do for itself is to shake off the shackles of silly superstitions.

When it comes to pretty much all measurements of well being, the nation's that are the least religious are better off. They are happier, healthier, wealthier, live longer and have the lowest mortality rates. So frankly, I've grown a certain degree of animus towards the religious of their claims to moral superiority as the facts say something else entirely.

 

[Thor 2]

The idea promoted by the religious that the world will go to hell in a handbasket without God is simply not supported by the evidence. In fact, all the available evidence proves exactly the opposite. That by far, the best thing humanity could do for itself is to shake off the shackles of silly superstitions.

When it comes to pretty much all measurements of well being, the nation's that are the least religious are better off. They are happier, healthier, wealthier, live longer and have the lowest mortality rates. So frankly, I've grown a certain degree of animus towards the religious of their claims to moral superiority as the facts say something else entirely.

Couldn't agree more. If fact you don't even need to look at other nations because the different states in the USA illustrate this also. Down in those Bible Belt states the murder rates are the highest. The incarceration rates are the highest also, in spite of the fact they maintain the death penalty to get rid of some.

 

[Loss Leader]

A lizard (or any other creature) lacks all the attributes needed to evolve intelligence. Humans are supremely adaptable, versatile, able to use the environment. Lizards are able to survive and procreate and not much else

You've clearly never met my sister.

 

[PartSkeptic]

And yet it's Western capitalism, not the explicitly atheist Chinese communist system and its population that recently polled as 61% 'convinced atheist,' that's strongly informed by Christianity and its explicit promise of judgment in the afterlife. Strange.

Dave

Yes, it is strange - at the moment.

In my opinion, the Chinese system is working very well because the nation is fairly homogeneous, and the leaders are determined to have the nation grow stronger through cooperative effort. Corruption undermines that effort, and they execute such people rather quickly. I think you would have a problem with that.

One does not need individual morality to forge ahead rapidly in the survival of the fittest race. Cold logic will work just fine for short spurts.

And in my opinion, Western nations ignore some basic tenets of Christianity when they initiate wars and stir unrest to further "national interest".

Will the Chinese success lead to a better world without Christian morality in the long run? I am not so sure after my experience rooming in the house of a Chinese woman in New Zealand.

If she could beat the system or break the law without getting caught she would and did. In raising her two boys, she had no qualms about abandoning the older one because it suited her.

And having sex with any man because it suited her was also not a problem.

Some of the other Chinese I came across there had no problem sleeping with men to get them to help them break the law regarding immigration status. It was common for Chinese immigrants to lie to the authorities and to pay others to lie to get into the country.

There are some Chinese there who are Christian. Some Churches have Chinese services at one time and English services at other times.

 

[PartSkeptic]

When considering the "fine tuning" variation of the argument from design I think there's an important consideration that often leads people to error.

The various equations and formulas, and the constants that are used in those formulas, that we call "laws of nature" are just descriptions. They aren't causes. We observe and measure the universe, and we come up with these descriptions, and we express them as mathematical relationships that include constants such as the gravitational constant, or the speed of light, which is itself a consequence of two other constants, the magnetic and electric permeability of free space, and all those other constants that are found in our physics textbooks.

Because we have those numbers, we have a strong tendency to try and imagine what would happen if those numbers are different, but that is confusing cause and effect. The numbers are a description of the universe. If the universe were different, then we would need different equations that used different numbers. We can't just imagine tweaking the numbers and seeing what sort of universe there would be, because all of those numbers are as they are because the universe is as it is. If we have the atoms and particles and photons that we have, they are described by these numbers. If the numbers were different, then the universe wouldn't be described by them. Atoms wouldn't hold together. Matter and energy wouldn't interact as they do. The equations we use wouldn't be the same equations.

Because we use these numbers to describe the world, it is psychologically simple to imagine if the numbers were different, and we realize, in that case, that the universe simply wouldn't "work". At that point, we might begin to thank our lucky stars that those numbers are exactly what they are, and we might even be tempted to assign some sort of "probability" to those numbers being what they are, but such an exercise is meaningless. If the universe didn't work the way it did, the numbers and the equations that use them wouldn't be useful.

James Maxwell came up with a set of four equations that describe electromagnetism, and the elements in those four equations have elements that can be related to each other using two constants, for electric and magnetic permeability. What is the probability that those four equations would be useful to describe the universe? The question borders on the nonsensical. However, the "fine tuning" variation of the argument from design asks us what is the probability that those constants would be what they are. That question is equally nonsensical, but it doesn't "feel" quite as nonsensical.

We can't talk about probability in such cases. The question has no meaning. The equations and the constants therein are what they are because the universe is as it is. If the universe were different, there would be different equations, not just different constants.

Thanks for a really great well reasoned point that I can address.

My reading of the various articles on the internet is that there is a scientific consensus that the universe IS fine-tuned for life. Some say it is just so and is unremarkable. Some say it has the appearance of being engineered.

There is a simple equation for velocity of a falling object due to gravity on Earth. Vf = Vi + gt where g is the gravitational constant on Earth, and is proportional to the universal gravitational constant G.

If g is larger or smaller by 10 percent then science can use the equations to predict what life would be like. It would be different, but there is no obvious reason that LOCALLY life could not evolve.

That is not true to other constants. Changing them only slightly will result in a total lack of functionality. There are many of these constants.

The other aspect is that a change to a constant governing quantum level effects makes a huge impact on the cosmology of the universe. Using the equations the Big Bang can be modeled. A small change leads to a universe that is unstable.

Because of modeling, one no longer needs actual examples of different universes to exist to compare them.

So change a constant slightly and things no longer function. One would not get elements heavier than iron, or the universe would expand so fast that galaxies could not form to make the elements heavier than iron, or the universe would implode before star formation.

The question asked is a philosophical one, but is not unscientific. Why are the constants what they are? If a child asks an adult this question and gets the answer "Because it just is", that is not a scientific debate.

Now what if the equations are different as well. Let see:
Vf = Vi + a*t might become what? Vf = Vi + a*t + a^2 *t^2 + a^3*t^3? It gets messy, and beyond the ability to model at present.

Scientists accept that we are indeed fine-tuned. But they get around this by postulating multiverses in the order of 10 to the power 500. That very large number is needed to get one of our universes.

 

[PartSkeptic]

You've clearly never met my sister.

But I have a sister-in-law who might be similar to your sister!

 

[PartSkeptic]

False. What makes you think that lizards lack intelligence and are incapable of thought? What about dogs, dolphins, whales, elephants, chimpanzees or crows?

You miss my point which was that mental intelligence and physical versatility go hand in hand. Einsteins brain in a jar would not evolve or achieve anything.

We need manual dexterity for fine motor skills needed for writing and for assembling tools. There is the added benefit of sport and the arts.

A dolphin can do a back flip and juggle a ball. How does that help it make a fire? Even our closest primate relative would suck at that task.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Of all the factless stuff you spew that has to be amongst the funniest ever - you think corruption in China is less than in "Western capitalism"!!

Give me an example of a Chinese Bernie Madoff who was not tried and executed in short order. (After being exposed.)