Creationism / Intelligent design

[WanderingKnight]

Humans, of course, are distinct from the rest of nature, despite being part of it. They are the only beings in nature that have to put effort into co-existing with nature without unbalancing the systems they are part of.

Well, I'd argue during centuries about that (specially the part of nature being a balanced entity)... but let's leave it as a simple disagreement. I'm not sure if every scientist thinks like this, but I'm pretty sure many of them out there believe that there's no such thing as a "free will", when it comes to behavior. A person's actions are a consequence of the instability of the system we live in (the vision of nature as a balanced entity does have its links with religion--if it was like that, adaptation wouldn't be needed and wouldn't occur in the first place), due to the fact that humans are another element of that system, and as such they are conditioned by the very system they help to form. It's a basic disagreement I have with many people, and I believe it is firmly rooted in religious concepts of humanity as a species that rises far above the rest, that's "out of the loop", as you called it. I, on the other hand, believe mankind is as inside the loop as any other element of the universe.

We do have the capability to rationalize, though we've yet to reach the state of complete self-awareness, enough to separate our logical thought from our egoistic, subjective thoughts. That's why I believe we're still inside the loop. Until we figure out the loop in its entirety (that is, through science), we won't be out of it.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Well, I'd argue during centuries about that (specially the part of nature being a balanced entity)... but let's leave it as a simple disagreement. I'm not sure if every scientist thinks like this, but I'm pretty sure many of them out there believe that there's no such thing as a "free will", when it comes to behavior. A person's actions are a consequence of the instability of the system we live in (the vision of nature as a balanced entity does have its links with religion--if it was like that, adaptation wouldn't be needed and wouldn't occur in the first place), due to the fact that humans are another element of that system, and as such they are conditioned by the very system they help to form. It's a basic disagreement I have with many people, and I believe it is firmly rooted in religious concepts of humanity as a species that rises far above the rest, that's "out of the loop", as you called it. I, on the other hand, believe mankind is as inside the loop as any other element of the universe.

Well, now we're getting into philisophy again.

I don't see adaptation as proof of overall imbalance, but itself an effect to correct minor imbalances and preserve overall imbalances. We can see that balance because life has yet to implode in on itself so far, much like we know a tightrope walker has balance because he's still standing on the rope. How long that balance continues is at question, but the overall balance in the past is observable. Whether that balance has been achieved by the chance of adaptive systems developing and beating the odds and adapting successfully or by design, of course, returns to religion.

I'm not sure that humans existing "outside the circle" is equivilant to "rising above it". I just meant that they are least subject to the effects of said "circle". Much like the lion is at the top of the food chain, so are humans. The difference being that human reasoning allows them to be more adaptable as individuals, and be even less subject to the changes in the system around them, and even intentionally influence them, whether intention a product of free will or adaptive systems operating in a world ruled by chance creating the illusion of free will. As long as humans support themselves from products of nature and return to it when they decompose, they'll always be a part of the circle (or looping line, however one wants to look at it) on some level.

...Again, a lot of this seeming disagreement is just a matter of semantics.

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

We do have the capability to rationalize, though we've yet to reach the state of complete self-awareness, enough to separate our logical thought from our egoistic, subjective thoughts. That's why I believe we're still inside the loop. Until we figure out the loop in its entirety (that is, through science), we won't be out of it.

Although our reasons are likely somewhat different on the back end, we are in agreement on this statement.

[WanderingKnight]

We're still disagreeing on the part about nature being stable. I certainly don't see it like that because, even if it may look stable, what we're seeing is nothing but an extremely limited perception of the world that surrounds us.

How long that balance continues is at question, but the overall balance in the past is observable.

I doubt that, but here we might be arguing about what's stable and what is not stable. Socrates used to say, before arguing, first, you need to clear up what is the topic, because you may well be entangled in a lexical conflict, not an argumentative conflict. I see stableness in a more abstract fashion. In such an abstract fashion, that it hardly makes a difference whether there is life or not involved in the process. You seem to take (as I understand from what you are saying) a more practical approach on the word "stable", while I abstract it so much that whether the elements of a system are alive or not doesn't matter. In fact, it could be argued that the very fact that something is "alive" is the proof of an unstable system (but I won't go that far, as I haven't given it that much thought).

I hope that clears up whatever argument we may be having.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

We're still disagreeing on the part about nature being stable. I certainly don't see it like that because, even if it may look stable, what we're seeing is nothing but an extremely limited perception of the world that surrounds us.

I doubt that, but here we might be arguing about what's stable and what is not stable. Socrates used to say, before arguing, first, you need to clear up what is the topic, because you may well be entangled in a lexical conflict, not an argumentative conflict. I see stableness in a more abstract fashion. In such an abstract fashion, that it hardly makes a difference whether there is life or not involved in the process. You seem to take (as I understand from what you are saying) a more practical approach on the word "stable", while I abstract it so much that whether the elements of a system are alive or not doesn't matter. In fact, it could be argued that the very fact that something is "alive" is the proof of an unstable system (but I won't go that far, as I haven't given it that much thought).

I hope that clears up whatever argument we may be having.

I wasn't aware we were arguing. Just debating.

Really, though, I don't see stability and balance as equivilant. That which is stable is balanced, but that which is balanced is not necessarily stable. Balance can also be achieved by shifting back and forth, stability be danged.

When I spoke of balance, I wasn't defining balance itself as natural life existing, but observing that natural life has maintained so far its own balance by virtue of sustained existence. I agree, stability (or instability) can exist with or without life.

[WanderingKnight]

Well, you see, it was a lexical confusion. To which I haven't given much thought, really. Balance... I find it hardly defines anything anyways. Such balance is a subjective view of reality, in truth, by itself, nature does nothing to contribute to that balance, supposing it does exist, which I highly doubt, as species are born and die pretty much naturally, without the influence of man. The Earth itself has been changing its temperature periodically for ages (remember the Ice Age?), despite whatever politicians and extremist environmentalists may want us to believe. Mankind does contribute to the modification of the so-called status quo, but the question should be, is there really a status quo in the first place? Isn't our view of nature as a balanced entity linked with old religious traditions and teachings? That's what I was questioning in the post that triggered this particular debate.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Well, you see, it was a lexical confusion. To which I haven't given much thought, really. Balance... I find it hardly defines anything anyways. Such balance is a subjective view of reality, in truth, by itself, nature does nothing to contribute to that balance, supposing it does exist, which I highly doubt, as species are born and die pretty much naturally, without the influence of man. The Earth itself has been changing its temperature periodically for ages (remember the Ice Age?), despite whatever politicians and extremist environmentalists may want us to believe. Mankind does contribute to the modification of the so-called status quo, but the question should be, is there really a status quo in the first place? Isn't our view of nature as a balanced entity linked with old religious traditions and teachings? That's what I was questioning in the post that triggered this particular debate.

You know, that's a really good question.

My first thought is that it's not necessarily due to religious teachings, but due to our tendency as humans to reject change, and believe that the way things are is the way things ought to be. Even the non-religious would really prefer to maintain the status quo enough to survive.

As far as Judeo-Christian doctrine goes, the big-picture teaching goes that things did change in the past, and will one day change again, and there's no clear explanation on how things should have been or how they will be. It does teach that life will go on indefinitely, but not does not promise that it would be as we know it, so life in that teaching doesn't even have to have any bearing outside the spiritual sense.

I'm hesitant to say that popular religious teachings conveyed that properly, though (I think it's clear that I note a difference between religious doctrine and common religious teaching, which may or may not even match the doctrine it purports to be about). Off-hand, I can't think of any popular teachings that would encourage the mindset that life should continue in its present form, but I may be glossing over something, or even unaware of older, defunct teachings that may have established that mindset.

Since the concept exists in multiple cultures throughout various religions, though, I'm more inclined to say it's a belief created by basic human nature that most people just never consider. I do think we should consider it.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

I agree. The thing is, we were discussing logics in those classes, so as an example of a fallacy, we used "God exists/God doesn't exist". Of course, "there's no evidence of it" is much more precise, and it renders a slight difference: that you leave the possibility for existence open, of a new evidence appearing.

Actually, the distinction between the two positions is pretty much nonexistent until some evidence appears.

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

That is correct, but the scope of the assumption only covers anything within the scope of what is being observed or what might affect what you are observing. Saying that science assumes God without proof of him is like saying that science assumes the observer doesn't exist (excepting in the case of quantum physics, of course). In other words, it's a pointless statement with no bearing on the larger picture, and worthless in actually judging the existence of a creator.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I didn't say that "science assumes God" at all; I said that as far as science is concerned, "There's evidence to suggest that God exists". If you want to substitute "supernatural creator" for "God", the sentence will parse exactly the same way.

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

No, I understand the reason for the excitement. I just don't find that possibility any more exciting than the possibility of other forms of life that wouldn't have an immediate understanding of.

I'm still not sure you get it. While there is a chance that life can form in very unfamiliar environments, the only one where we can be sure of is the terrestrial one. That's why Earth-like environments are viewed with such excitement. For all we know, there might be methane-breathing alien squids living in Jupiter, but until we actually discover them, our assumption is that Jupiter is completely hostile to life.

[Aoie_Emesai]

Originally Posted by Kaioshin_Sama

Guy's we all know the universe was created by Suzumiya Haruhi 5 years ago.

BS!BS!BSBSBSBSBSBSBSB!!

Originally Posted by ibreatheanime

I would like people to consider this...

science and religon seem to be locked in a battle agianst one another. Maybe we interpret the bible to literaly. In theory God created the everything, but does the bible specify how? Perhaps the "days" they speak of are really thousands of years. Perhaps the animals god created included dinosaurs.

If the bones are here to test our faith, then they have created much confusion in a world where the distinction b/t one thing and another seems to have likeliness but it seems apparently that it has a large quantity of difference and nonconformity.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, while having existed in secrecy for hundreds of years, only recently came into the mainstream when this letter was published in May 2005.

With millions, if not thousands, of devout worshippers, the Church of the FSM is widely considered a legitimate religion, even by its opponents - mostly fundamentalist Christians, who have accepted that our God has larger balls than theirs.

Some claim that the church is purely a thought experiment, satire, illustrating that Intelligent Design is not science, but rather a pseudoscience manufactured by Christians to push Creationism into public schools. These people are mistaken. The Church of FSM is real, totally legit, and backed by hard science. Anything that comes across as humor or satire is purely coincidental.

Well... if I could get about 10000 followers to start believing in Flying Pigs, then it would feel as legit as Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

It's called determinism. Not all scientists agree on it, though--but the main point is, things happen as consequences of an unstable system (someone with more knowledge could correct me on this, it's just my amateurish assumption). It's cause-consequence. An animal like the human was supposed to appear because, according to the circumstances of the system, there was no other choice--it happened because of a reason, and were the same (possibly unaccountable) elements of that system which generated humans to be gathered again and put back to the same state, we'd get the same result--the birth of the human race. It's a pretty abstract concept, but if you believe that everything has an explanation, that everything has a cause (as scientists do most of times), then this abstraction starts feeling more and more plausible.

The problem is, we can't (yet) have an account of every single element of a system, and that's why most of things can't be fully explained scientifically.

To dig further into the topic, there's the Theory of the Eternal Return (not too sure of the title or where did I get it from, maybe I'm talking about something else...), which understands the universe as a perpetual coming and going of the same--the Big Bang explodes, the universe expands, gets to a standstill and starts contracting again, till we get to a single point where all the mass and energy of the universe is concentrated. Then the Big Bang occurs again, and every single element reorganizes itself exactly the same way as before--so we'd get the same results, the same history of humankind, the same evolution of species, everything.

For a (kind of) applied determinism -on society-, read some Marx, which helped me build most of my background theoretic corpus.

If this is true, then out world ends at December 21th, 2012 then. If we follow our events correctly.

Originally Posted by Spectacular_Insanity

Instead of being evangelistic, I have adopted a "wait and see" attitude. I find that it's a much lower stress stance to maintain.

I often feel like that at some points in my day. Discussing it in these heated debates, the only thing I learn from it is several new vocabulary.

Originally Posted by theDarkHorse

Honestly, though I feel that the atheist movement (Dawkins, Hitchens and co) have reason on their side, that's not going to help much in the way of persuading the rest of the population.

I don't understand the belief in the "godless" faith. If you can assume that there's no god or anything of a higher being, what can you believe in? Aliens built the pyramids? It's the Matrix? Play the wait game like Spectacular_Insanity? (no offense to you S_I)

---

I don't consider my self to be a evangelistic or an advocate of any kind, but I at least need a reasonable answer, whether it's logical in an earthly way, or in a theological sense. Explain your reasons, is what I would say. If you are unwilling or unable to sensibly clarify your reasonings, then I cannot accept your belief.

[theDarkHorse]

The great thing is, you don't have to believe anything if you don't want to, or, like me, you don't think there's enough evidence or whatever for it. Really, the whole 'believe or don't believe' thing doesn't determine what I do with the rest of my life. It's pretty much "here is my life, get on with it and do something useful" which drives me forward.

I agree. If there's no satisfactory explanation, why should I believe it? (This raises the question of who/what determines "satistfactory". I don't have the energy to think through it yet. xD)

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Aoie_Emesai

BS!BS!BSBSBSBSBSBSBSB!!

Damn straight. We all know that Kyon did it.

[WanderingKnight]

If this is true, then out world ends at December 21th, 2012 then. If we follow our events correctly.

I often feel like that at some points in my day. Discussing it in these heated debates, the only thing I learn from it is several new vocabulary.

If you take other people's post jokingly, of course you won't learn anything new from discussions like this .

[General_Norris]

I think, and all the piloshopers throught history (Well, perhaps not all) think that the only way of obtaining certain knoweldge is through logic, i.e. reasoning.

Also note that empirical evidence is not enough for sustaining something as truth as you only have probabilities. (For example, the rock falls when I throw it doesn't mean it will fall the next time).

If you don't agree with these then I'm afraid you will never understand nor my points nor any point ever.

Reason is the only key to the Truth. Empirical evidence cannot support a claim by itself but is a powerful tool to discovering the Truth. Blindy beliving is (Excuse me) just plain ilogical, irrational and invalid.

You can say "But the bones could have been put by God". It's true. But that's a a supossition without any proof. Empirical evidence is not perfect but it is strictly better than blindy believing. At worst it is the same thing but it has been tested and can build a logical theory along with reasoning. To me it's more pausible a 1/350763908790378903780386359069036890368306809th chance of life existing that the idea of a God. Because at least there is a chance, as we exist while there has been no proof of God's existance (And don't say the XXX says it's true because it is FAR more probable that somebody made it up)

Evolution, atomic theory is far more credible than religion because at least there is some kind of logic. I also would want to ask. Why Christianity and not Haruhiism? And I'm not kidding. Maybe somewhere in Japan a Haruhi exists or someone similar to her exists. There's no difference between believing in God as an wiz elder that as a Gigant Sandwich as both are equally as logical.

I don't think religion should be taken so literally. The Bible is obviusly wrong. The Earth is not flat, for example. But that doesn't render it's intrensecal (Probably misspelt)message. When you try to conform the world to a dogmatism (The Bible) all you are actually doing is making its message lesss credible. Let's face it, the Bible was written hundreds of years ago and things were different. In my country the major part the population is catholic but they all think that the "No-condom" doctrine is nonsense for example.

[monster]

Originally Posted by General_Norris

I think, and all the piloshopers throught history (Well, perhaps not all) think that the only way of obtaining certain knoweldge is through logic, i.e. reasoning.

And how do you define logic?

For example:

The Bible is obviusly wrong. The Earth is not flat, for example.

In the two sentences above? How did you logically deduce one statement from the other when the Bible never expressly stated the Earth is flat?

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by General_Norris

I think, and all the piloshopers throught history (Well, perhaps not all) think that the only way of obtaining certain knoweldge is through logic, i.e. reasoning.

Also note that empirical evidence is not enough for sustaining something as truth as you only have probabilities. (For example, the rock falls when I throw it doesn't mean it will fall the next time).

If you don't agree with these then I'm afraid you will never understand nor my points nor any point ever.

Reason is the only key to the Truth. Empirical evidence cannot support a claim by itself but is a powerful tool to discovering the Truth. Blindy beliving is (Excuse me) just plain ilogical, irrational and invalid.

You can say "But the bones could have been put by God". It's true. But that's a a supossition without any proof. Empirical evidence is not perfect but it is strictly better than blindy believing. At worst it is the same thing but it has been tested and can build a logical theory along with reasoning. To me it's more pausible a 1/350763908790378903780386359069036890368306809th chance of life existing that the idea of a God. Because at least there is a chance, as we exist while there has been no proof of God's existance (And don't say the XXX says it's true because it is FAR more probable that somebody made it up)

Evolution, atomic theory is far more credible than religion because at least there is some kind of logic. I also would want to ask. Why Christianity and not Haruhiism? And I'm not kidding. Maybe somewhere in Japan a Haruhi exists or someone similar to her exists. There's no difference between believing in God as an wiz elder that as a Gigant Sandwich as both are equally as logical.

I don't think religion should be taken so literally. The Bible is obviusly wrong. The Earth is not flat, for example. But that doesn't render it's intrensecal (Probably misspelt)message. When you try to conform the world to a dogmatism (The Bible) all you are actually doing is making its message lesss credible. Let's face it, the Bible was written hundreds of years ago and things were different. In my country the major part the population is catholic but they all think that the "No-condom" doctrine is nonsense for example.

Have you considered that there might be other reasons that people believe in God other than that they were taught to do so or dreamed up the idea? There are, indeed, many people who fit that description, but while it's certainly too much to go into here, many people DO have other reasons for believing in God. The specifics of why, and why a specific religion, are certainly far outside the scope of this thread, but you might investigate "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell if you wonder about Christianity, specifically.

If you're judging the veracity of the Bible based on the idea that it says the earth is flat... Well, you have the wrong idea about what it actually says.

Science, from atomic theory to evolution, doesn't disprove God in the least. It's not an "alternative" to belief in God. The subject of God is completely peripheral, just as the question "how" is peripheral to the questions of "what" or "why". Science and reasoning should be used, certainly, to verify and corroborate religious belief, of course, but saying that one doesn't believe in a creator because we have these relatively reliable theories is like saying "I don't believe in Henry Ford because I know how every part of my Mustang works."

[OutPhase]

I do not believe in Creationism since it is associated with the Bible, and the last time I checked, the Bible is NOT a reliable source for accurate information or an official account of historical events since it is a book for a religion which is based on faith, which means you have to believe in it despite there being no past recordings of it being based on or it actually being factually reliable.


Also, the Bible itself is vague and is open to multiple interpretations.

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by Razer_2mb

Also, the Bible itself is vague and is open to multiple interpretations.

And then, by your account, so is every other major work of religious origin (i.e. the Koran, Torah, etc.)

[Vexx]

I believe the various stringers, sects, and schisms demonstrate that in the various religions.... even Buddhism has any number of variants.

After all, that's how you get groups as diverse as Methodists, Greek Orthodox, and Snake Handlers, or the Rev. Moon claiming to follow the same book.
(Never mind the Sunni and Shia .... Orthodox and Reformed, etc etc)

((follow the shoe....))

[WanderingKnight]

And then, by your account, so is every other major work of religious origin (i.e. the Koran, Torah, etc.)

What's the problem with that? I don't see a problem with what he said, regarding that point.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Spectacular_Insanity

And then, by your account, so is every other major work of religious origin (i.e. the Koran, Torah, etc.)

I'd say that that was precisely Razer_2mb's point. Scientifically speaking, the Bible is no more reliable than any other religious work.

[innominate]

Hmm pardon my ineloquence, but I will jump in for a while.

I guess I believe religion started off as a concept to provide man a direction in life. We bring it to ourselves that man was created in the image of god (or, to be nonspecific, being of man-resembling gods), and that we should follow god ("I am the Way and the Truth and the Life.") so that we can achieve specific aims. In this case, the more man resembles god, the higher his social status and the closer he is to attaining that 'god' status. The beauty of this premise is that all arguments based on religion would be absolute. The fact that everybody is compelled by this religion gives the society the unspoken right to take revenge upon an individual or a group who goes against the teachings of the religion.

Mmh so it somewhat serves as the basis for ethical and moral judgments.

However religious arguments can backfire easily I guess; faced with heavy limitations. As the interpretation of 'perfect' i.e. type of god, change over time, people tend to equate their religious status with their social credibility. As a result... you get religious disputes etc etc.

Now for creationism (omgosh I went offtopic; never realised)... Of course, given the idea that a greater being has created our world and things like that, this being has to be able to have power and control over nature.

The thing is that... as man continues with his scientific advances he discovers this power to control nature. GE, biotech and nano tech gives us the power to manipulate the blueprints of life allows us to 'play god' to that extent, if the only reason for god to exist is creation, that is.

(Early scientists like Newton pursued the areas of science to prove the existence of a god, but were disheartened upon finding that their results only showed otherwise.)

Actually, science is definitely more grounded in terms of pragmatic considerations. Religion based arguments demarcate a clear 'this is right, that is wrong' kind of boundary, whereas science is more flexible, and as Einstein once said... A million experiments would never prove me right, but a single experiment could prove me wrong. (Did he say that? I quite forgot) But the point is that, science can change, and is entirely and admittedly within the power of man to do so.

The fact that scientific dogmas are based on human observations and logical extrapolations already justifies the reliability of secular arguments as compared to like, arguments based on the bible, which I believe is more of a literary (spiritual) text than a factual record. As such, religion tends to appear a little unreliable ('open to interpretation').

However, depending on the nature of the non secular argument, I guess it is possible to argue in a different direction.
I dunno, if you want to argue religion through a scientific point of view it gets kind of difficult, as the strength of religious arguments lie in ethical considerations and not from origin nor creation. (As stated above)

Oh and actually, Haruhiism is quite a good religion. Okay, it's more of a positive outlook to life in the sense that the past has little implication on the future.

And, eww I think my post went badly offtopic. Heh;