|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
|
Dog_Ed
Skeptic Friend
USA
126 Posts |
 Posted - 04/25/2001 : 03:10:09 [Permalink]
|
Hi Atomic, and everyone. I'm pretty new to the forums here.
In "The Mind of God" physicist Paul Davies pretty much concludes that there is no physical evidence for an intelligent designer of the Universe but he cavils in the last chapter and allows as how questions about ultimate origins may not be answerable scientifically and therefore there *may* be room for mysticism.
For myself, I have never gotten past the naive-realist point of view: no matter whether there is one Universe or many, the only way our particular type of sentient being could exist is if the physical constants of the Universe are pretty closely constrained. If the gravitational constant or the strength of the strong force were different we would not be here. But we *are* here and therefore the Universe we see is one which allows things like us to happen.
Now I'll go read the article. *grin*
--Dog Ed
|
 |
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2001 : 03:12:46 [Permalink]
|
Only room for mysticism is in the gaps that science hasn't explored yet.
Nothing to worry about though, they will be explained soon, and the god of the gaps will shrink.
|
|
|
|
Dog_Ed
Skeptic Friend
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2001 : 03:26:23 [Permalink]
|
bestonnet_00: Yep, I agree. I just read the Seattle Weekly article--pretty sloppy, mostly a human-interest piece. The Discovery Institute they write about applies the intelligent design argument to biology, where it makes little sense. Davies and other physicists define the term much more rigorously, contending that if there is evidence of design it is in the fundamental physical constants of the Universe. Arguments for designed evolution have always fallen on their faces for precisely the reasons you give--the gaps in knowledge are filled.
And I can see no compelling evidence for intelligent design even in the physical constants of the Universe.
--Dog Ed
|
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2001 : 14:43:03 [Permalink]
|
Back in my bad old days of evil genetic engineering the one thing that always struck me when I was looking at the DNA sequences:
If humans were created by another intelligent being, then they must absolutely be the worst designer ever!
Serious Rube Goldberg all the way.
Arf! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2001 : 08:39:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If humans were created by another intelligent being, then they must absolutely be the worst designer ever!
What's funny (or sad, take your pick) is that proponents of ID see things like the eye, and think "Wow! How complex! I must have been designed!", while we might (and usually do) say "What a horrible design for an eye! Even I could have done a better job!", then proceeded to point out that the squid and/or octopus eye is a much better eye.
quote:
In the human eye the retina is made up of several layers of different kinds of cells. The sensitive rods and cones are at the back of the retina, facing away from the light. To reach them the light first has to travel through blood vessels, nerve fibres and then several layers of retinal nerve cells. The octopus eye, it seems, evolved independently to ours and whilst it is similar in many ways the octopus got the retina in ‘the right way'. Its rods and cones face forwards, and blood supply and nerves come from behind.
What's even funnier, is that the above quote is from a creationist's website! He then proceeds to argue that the human eye is 'more craftily designed' than it seems.
http://www.catalase.com/retina.htm
|
|
|
|
TFarnon
New Member
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2001 : 00:58:49 [Permalink]
|
<
If humans were created by another intelligent being, then they must absolutely be the worst designer ever! >>
NO JOKE! The first thing you learn in molecular biology is "Abandon all hope". The second thing is baseball batting averages are good odds in molecular biology. The third thing you learn is gel sequencing bites the big one.
Lisa
Bacteria RULE, Hominids drool |
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2001 : 08:39:34 [Permalink]
|
Fourth thing you learn is that boiling urea doesn't smell good.
Fifth thing is that E.coli and Cheerios smell the same. Ugh! Oat bran!
Arf! |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2001 : 22:37:08 [Permalink]
|
Maybe the Intelligent Designer is an imbecile. The cul de sacs in the genetic code were full of mistakes and hidden turns. Very sloppy, if you ask me.
ljbrs
If the Intelligent Designer had known better, he/she/it would have done better...
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2001 : 00:48:17 [Permalink]
|
I am going to agree with Dog_Ed here, in my own particular way: Why is it so hard for people to accept that the universal constants are what they are? We exist because we exist. If those constants were any different, we may not exist, and therefore may not be able to ask why we exist.
I do not mean to suggest we stop looking for reasons, but to assume there must be a designer is offensive.
|
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2001 : 20:54:32 [Permalink]
|
Intelligent Design (ID) is an old idea which has had a reincarnation from an earlier era. It seems to reappear like magic whenever people begin to lose faith in the revealed word of God. I remember hearing about ID a long, long time ago, in my childhood. I think that the idea was created in order to avoid the displeasure of the women that certain scientists married. They could not come right out and negate religion. Intelligent Design puts something other than a dependency on sacred books as a background for religion -- any religion. It is a cop out for those who are afraid to speak out on their own.
I remember being told that the first book in Genesis (with the creation of the universe story, naturally in the wrong order) had each day as being exceedingly long. The people that I knew who believed this, stopped there and went along with evolution all the rest of the way. Kind of crazy mixed up adults. They did not want to assault others with their scientific ideas. So they carefully muted them.
But the idea of ID is not new and has been around for perhaps at least a century. Perhaps it has been reinvented with new twists in the story. Perhaps the one which I was told about was a reinvention of an older set of ID beliefs.
It sounds as if the leaders in the movement are grasping at straws to keep them on the straight and narrow and away from that nasty science that shows otherwise.
Then again, perhaps it is really turtles (tortoises ?) all the way down...
ljbrs
They will never want to know better and will, therefore, never do better... Poor things...
|
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2001 : 20:32:23 [Permalink]
|
Here is something which the students in my state are going to have for their public school science classes, wherever it applies:
quote:
-In the science standards, all references to "evolution" and "how species change through time" would be modified to indicate that this is an unproven theory, by adding the phrase "all students will explain the competing theories of evolution and natural selection based on random mutation and the theory that life is the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a creator."
-In the science standards for middle and high school, all references to "evolution" and "natural selection" would be modified to indicate that these are unproven theories, by adding the phrase "describe how life may be the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a creator."
In the science standards for middle and high school, all references to "evolution" and "natural selection" would be modified to indicate that these are unproven theories, by adding the phrase "explain the competing theories of evolution and natural selection based on random mutation and the theory that life is the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a creator."
The bill also would require that the recommended model core academic curriculum content standards that are developed and periodically updated by the state board comply with these provisions. Finally, under the bill the State Board would be required to make these revisions as soon as practicable after the effective date of the bill, if it is enacted.
I did not know about this idiocy until it was too late. It is a blow against science education in my state (Michigan). There will be industries which will refuse to come here. Our economy could suffer. Perhaps there will be more *home schooling* to counteract the lousy science being given under these rules. And our terrible science (and math) scores will get even worse when compared to the *World Community*. I hope that the science teachers in Michigan are ready to solve this problem by providing the correct evolution answers to all questions. Fat chance!
I suppose, naturally, that all of the private schools which will get state funds will have to adopt these standards, too.
ljbrs
Of course, you can guess which political party rules in my lousy state.
Edited by - ljbrs on 06/22/2001 20:41:52 |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2001 : 20:46:23 [Permalink]
|
There goes the community...
ljbrs
Nobody in my state is going to know better or do better from now on unless they do it themselves...
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2001 : 22:33:01 [Permalink]
|
This is when we "pray"  the schools hire science teachers who teach science.
When I was in High School, my Biology teacher wanted us to write a paper on Creation vs Evolution. I was determined to keep an open mind and give Creation a fair chance. By the time I wrote the paper, after I had done all my research, it became a dissertation on how very wrong Creation is.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
