WrathfulDwarfAll it needs is evidence and proof to be able to be a part of the realm. For now it stays in philosophy....I think.
Intelligent Design is based on phenomena in the observable universe; I provided a simple example of such on this thread. Bodies of mass, space, and time are dependent upon one another--interwoven. Remove any element from the equation and the sum equates to impossibility. Any astronomer would defend this position tooth and nail; but this verifies that bodies of mass, space, and time arose simultaneously, which provokes thought about Intelligent Design. Why? Because evolutionary processes birthing the universe is seemingly impossible. Science is not in the business of developing models about God. Theists know this; but science does provoke theories (as to the "cause" of something, namely, the universe in this discussion). And for a scientist to speculate that the universe is the product of an Intelligent Agent isn't committing intellectual suicide. If current science--by naturalistic means--lacks the capacity to employ a sound model for the origin of the universe, what's the harm in considering other options? Are we really prepared to entertain the notion--as fact--that the universe came into existence from nothing (by nothing)? And this question also pertains to the origin of living matter, not to mention biochemical information.
To help digest this information (and put it into perspective), I'd like to address the anthropic principle or irreducibly complexity; and I will do this on my next post. These subjects have nothing to do with philosophy.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Intelligent Design is based on phenomena in the observable universe; I provided a simple example of such on this thread. Bodies of mass, space, and time are dependent upon one another--interwoven. Remove any element from the equation and the sum equates to impossibility. Any astronomer would defend this position tooth and nail; but this verifies that bodies of mass, space, and time arose simultaneously, which provokes thought about Intelligent Design. Why? Because evolutionary processes birthing the universe is seemingly impossible. Science is not in the business of developing models about God. Theists know this; but science does provoke theories (as to the "cause" of something, namely, the universe in this discussion). And for a scientist to speculate that the universe is the product of an Intelligent Agent isn't committing intellectual suicide. If current science--by naturalistic means--lacks the capacity to employ a sound model for the origin of the universe, what's the harm in considering other options? Are we really prepared to entertain the notion--as fact--that the universe came into existence from nothing (by nothing)? And this question also pertains to the origin of living matter, not to mention biochemical information.To help digest this information (and put it into perspective), I'd like to address the anthropic principle or irreducibly complexity; and I will do this on my next post. These subjects have nothing to do with philosophy.
Oh please spare us the brain cell damage. Irreducible complexity, specified complexity and the anthropic ("finely tuned"😉 principle are beaten like a dead horse in this place already. Dembski, Behe etc. they are all a bunch of hacks.
The anthropic principle can be loosely defined as "conditions observed within the universe that allow life-forms to exist." Moreover, these conditions sustain the universe itself! To date, astronomers have discovered 200+ conditions that must be met for life-forms (and the universe) to exist; in this post, four will be presented. Please read carefully.
1. The gravitational coupling constant—i.e., the force of gravity, determines what kinds of stars are possible in the universe. If the gravitational force were slightly stronger, star formation would proceed more efficiently and all Stars would be more massive than our sun by at least 1.4 times. These large stars are important in that they alone manufacture elements heavier than iron, and they alone disperse elements heavier than beryllium to the interstellar medium. Such elements are essential for the formation of planets as well as of living things in any form. However, these Stars burn too rapidly and too unevenly to maintain life-supporting conditions on surrounding planets. Stars as small as our sun are necessary for that.
On the other hand, if the gravitational force were slightly weaker, all stars would have less than 0.8 times the mass of the sun. Though such stars burn long and evenly enough to maintain life-supporting planets, no heavy elements essential for building such planets or life would exist.
2. The strong nuclear force coupling constant holds together the particles in the nucleus of an atom. If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, multi-proton nuclei would not hold together. Hydrogen would be the only element in the universe.
If this force were slightly stronger, not only would hydrogen be rare in the universe, but the supply of the various life-essential elements heavier than iron (elements resulting from the fission of very heavy elements) would be insufficient. Either way, life would be impossible.
3. The weak nuclear force coupling constant affects the behavior of leptons. Leptons form a whole class of elementary particles (e.g. neutrinos, electrons, and photons) that do not participate in strong nuclear reactions. The most familiar weak interaction effect is radioactivity, in particular, the beta decay reaction:
neutron --> proton + electron + neutrino
The availability of neutrons as the universe cools through temperatures appropriate for nuclear fusion determines the amount of helium produced during the first few minutes of the big bang. If the weak nuclear force coupling constant were slightly larger, neutrons would decay more readily, and therefore would be less available. Hence, little or no helium would be produced from the big bang. Without the necessary helium, heavy elements sufficient for the constructing of life would not be made by the nuclear furnaces inside stars. On the other hand, if this constant were slightly smaller, the big bang would burn most or all of the hydrogen into helium, with a subsequent over-abundance of heavy elements made by stars, and again life would not be possible.
A second, possibly more delicate, balance occurs for supernovae. It appears that an outward surge of neutrinos determines whether or not a supernova is able to eject its heavy elements into outer space. If the weak nuclear force coupling constant were slightly larger, neutrinos would pass through a supernova's envelop without disturbing it. Hence, the heavy elements produced by the supernova would remain in the core. If the constant were slightly smaller, the neutrinos would not be capable of blowing away the envelop. Again, the heavy elements essential for life would remain trapped forever within the cores of supernovae.
4. The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. The characteristics of the orbits of electrons about atoms determines to what degree atoms will bond together to form molecules. If the electromagnetic coupling constant were slightly smaller, no electrons would be held in orbits about nuclei. If it were slightly larger, an atom could not "share" an electron orbit with other atoms. Either way, molecules, and hence life, would be impossible.
With all in mind, we have the luxury of stating, "Wow... what a coincidence!" But most astronomers find that assumption weak.
"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all.... It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe.... The impression of design is overwhelming." (Paul Davies, Astrophysicist)
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (Fred Hoyle, Astrophysicist)
[Note: All examples provided are excerpts from the article entitled, "Design and the Anthropic Principle," authored by Astronomer Hugh Ross. URL: www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design.shtml.]
This is an interesting article:
Intelligent Design: An Ambiguous Assault on Evolution
By Ker Than, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 22 September 2005 12:42 am ET
Science can sometimes be a devil's bargain: a discovery is made, some new aspect of nature is revealed, but the knowledge gained can cause mental anguish if it contradicts a deeply cherished belief or value.
Copernicus' declaration in 1543 that the Sun and the heavens were not, in fact, revolving around the Earth and its human inhabitants was one such painful enlightenment. The publication in 1859 of Charles Darwin's book, "The Origin of Species," set the stage for another.
Darwin's truth can be a hard one to accept. His theory of evolution tells us that humans evolved from non-human life as the result of a natural process, one that was both gradual, happening over billions of years, and random. It tells us that new life forms arise from the splitting of a single species into two or more species, and that all life on Earth can trace its origins back to a single common ancestor.
Perhaps most troubling of all, Darwin's theory of evolution tells us that life existed for billions of years before us, that humans are not the products of special creation and that life has no inherent meaning or purpose.
For Americans who view evolution as inconsistent with their intuitions or beliefs about life and how it began, Creationism has always been a seductive alternative.
Creationism's latest embodiment is intelligent design (ID), a conjecture that certain features of the natural world are so intricate and so perfectly tuned for life that they could only have been designed by a Supreme Being.
Real or apparent design?
"The question that we're facing in biology is that when we look at nature, we see design," said Scott Minnich, a microbiologist at the University of Idaho and an ID proponent. "But is it real design or apparent design? There are two answers to the question and both are profound in terms of their metaphysical implications."
In an August interview with National Public Radio, Republican Senator and ID supporter Rick Santorum stated exactly what he believed those implications were for evolution. Asked why he, a politician, felt compelled to weigh in on what was essentially a scientific debate, Santorum replied:
"It has huge consequences for society. It's where we come from. Does man have a purpose? Is there a purpose for our lives? Or are we just simply the result of chance? If we are the result of chance, if we're simply a mistake of nature, then that puts a different moral demand on us. In fact, it doesn't put a moral demand on us."
By adding morality to the equation, Santorum is giving the scientific theory of evolution a religious message, one that does not come on its own, said Kenneth Miller, a biologist at the University of Colorado.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Wrong. Science is mans attempt to understand creation. They go hand in hand religion and science.🙂
The main difference is that science is based on observations of nature, were as religions, like Christianity and Islam, are based on books. Problems arise when observations of nature contradict the religious books.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Intelligent Design is based on phenomena in the observable universe; I provided a simple example of such on this thread. Bodies of mass, space, and time are dependent upon one another--interwoven. Remove any element from the equation and the sum equates to impossibility. Any astronomer would defend this position tooth and nail; but this verifies that bodies of mass, space, and time arose simultaneously, which provokes thought about Intelligent Design. Why? Because evolutionary processes birthing the universe is seemingly impossible. Science is not in the business of developing models about God. Theists know this; but science does provoke theories (as to the "cause" of something, namely, the universe in this discussion). And for a scientist to speculate that the universe is the product of an Intelligent Agent isn't committing intellectual suicide. If current science--by naturalistic means--lacks the capacity to employ a sound model for the origin of the universe, what's the harm in considering other options? Are we really prepared to entertain the notion--as fact--that the universe came into existence from nothing (by nothing)? And this question also pertains to the origin of living matter, not to mention biochemical information.To help digest this information (and put it into perspective), I'd like to address the anthropic principle or irreducibly complexity; and I will do this on my next post. These subjects have nothing to do with philosophy.
Everything have to do with Philosophy....everything.
...still not sure why this wasn't closed. We have a thread for evolution/creationism, which obviously includes ID (since creationism at its purest form is basically incoherent).
....
At this point, if I had the time I'd make a thread dedicated to nothing but copy/pasting articles and videos expounding on evolution. Then reporting any ID'ers who step in and try to take it off-topic. I don't spite often, but I'd be tempted in this case.
Still, no one with any sense is swayed by this stuff unless they have strong religious convictions or have been indoctrinated into ID already at probably a young age. So my consolation is that most of this stuff is rather benign.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A guess? I thought it was more of a manipulation, which would still be like Christianity.
I read the article you provided entitled, "Intelligent Design: An Ambiguous Assault on Evolution." Shakyamunison, dear Sir, the entire article was the product of bias views; the author made grand claims, but didn't even attempt to substantiate them. For crying out loud, the article didn't even contain a bibliography (ha ha ha)! The last article that I provided--or provided excerpts from--contained 58 references!! But anyway.... in what way is Intelligent Design (ID) munipulation? Don't you understand, at minimum, it is simply a different interpretation of the facts, namely the fine-tuning of the universe (or biochemical information, nonetheless)? And how in the world does that even compare to Christianty? C'mon Shakyamunison, why don't you think about what you post on this forum? All you provided are blanket statements. Whether right or wrong, can you admit that?