The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Could the universe have been an act of an intelligent designer /chance  (Read 42741 times)

lyner

  • Guest
Alan
Quote
how did the big bang create our universe against the laws of physics that sustain it

Why should it be a stumbling block that we have not yet found an explanaton for the BB which, necessarily, is not included in our present set of knowledge? Your use of the word "laws" is the ancient one, which is why you can also talk of them "sustaining" the Universe. If, as Scientists believe, the "laws" are not 'god given' then there is no 'going against' them. The situation is just that we haven't, and certainly never will, understood it all.
That doesn't bother me, in particular.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2009 23:12:53 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Well, yes, of course the idea of an intelligent designer is completely self-consistent, an all-powerful being/force with a will of its own could of course do anything at all. Including inventing eg. the menstrual cycle of the human female... so actually not all that intelligent.

Apologies, I shall try not to be flippant.

OK, Alan McD, do you believe that the intelligent designer you propose has any properties other than as a designer? Do you think this thing/being/whatever has views about what his creation ought to be getting up to now it is, apparently, here? How much intelligent design do you think this intelligent designer might have intelligently designed - did it just set the laws of physics and wander off, or plan out carefully how evolution down to humans would map out? Do you think it had any interest at all in human beings (and if so what makes you think that, given that in terms of the lifetime even just of this planet we've been here pretty much for the blink of an eye and are shaping up nicely to wipe ourselves out in not very many hundreds of years)?

If the developement of humans was planned for then presumably the actions of the first humans, causing them to survive and not die out again must presumably have been designed in, so is it conceivable that we now have free will? And if we don't have free will why did the intelligent designer bother to design us?

I'm genuinely interested in your views here, Alan... and anyone else who wants to explain to me what on earth ID is, if it's not merely an attempt to dress up religion in the trappings of science?
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Surely science must investigate the how?, why?  where? and what? and demigod forbid, even the whom  research all that is not yet proved by empirical scientific method

If one could take a cell phone back to the dark ages, this unfortunate person would have been burned at the stake. Why must we simply dismiss anything not embraced by scientific fact or theories as silly nonsense

I agree, Science should be opened minded , question everything and not rely on theories that can not explain 100%. Even theories that we may think are fact should be thought about and viewed from a different perspective and in doing so we may learn more, come to the different conclusions. Even thoughts that we are unable to test at this present time should not be discarded.
Someone said "Nothing is impossible it only takes longer" remembering that once we all thought the world was flat, now we know better... and in 1995 it was recorded as truth that Mary died a virgin. (don't get me wrong I don't want to get on the religious band wagon) - keep religion out of science. But because a person in authority said that and recorded it as fact it is now believed by hundreds of thousands of people.
All I am saying is if we all go on believing things blindly we will never know the truth. We must question and find the answers to all our thoughts then question them again even when we think we have found the answer.
Our ideas should not be discarded just because we do not have the ability or knowledge to test validity at that time.
Without questions and new ideas nothing would have been discovered.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2009 00:10:06 by echochartruse »
 

lyner

  • Guest
But postulating an intelligent designer takes us no nearer the ultimate origin of things because the ID, if, indeed, one was necessary, would have to have been designed in the first place.
ID fans never seem to have an answer to that problem.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Surely science must investigate the how?, why?  where? and what? and demigod forbid, even the whom  research all that is not yet proved by empirical scientific method

If one could take a cell phone back to the dark ages, this unfortunate person would have been burned at the stake. Why must we simply dismiss anything not embraced by scientific fact or theories as silly nonsense

I agree, Science should be opened minded , question everything and not rely on theories that can not explain 100% what they intend to. Even theories that we may think are fact should be thought about and viewed from a different perspective and in doing so we may learn more, come to the different conclusions. Even thoughts that we are unable to test at this present time should not be discarded.
Someone said "Nothing is impossible it only takes longer" remembering that once we all thought the world was flat, now we know better... and in 1995 it was recorded as truth that Mary died a virgin. (don't get me wrong I don't want to get on the religious band wagon - keep religion out of science. But because a person in authority said that and recorded it as fact it is believed by hundreds of thousands of people.
All I am saying is if we all go on believing things blindly we will never know the truth. We must question and find the answers to all our thoughts then question them again when we thing we have found the answer.
Our ideas should not be discarded just because we do not have the ability or knowledge to test validity at that time.
Without questions and new ideas nothing would have been discovered.
That's just a motherhood and apple pie argument.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
But postulating an intelligent designer takes us no nearer the ultimate origin of things because the ID, if, indeed, one was necessary, would have to have been designed in the first place.
ID fans never seem to have an answer to that problem.

Is it not possible for something to exist in eternity....?

If our world imploded today or even expolded couldn't the origin of life exist somewhere else....?

Who placed the word "designer" there I thought it was "design" Are you trying to humanise it?
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
That's just a motherhood and apple pie argument.
What....?

Quote
"Motherhood and apple pie day" is celebrated each January 26 in Virginia and has been since at least 1950, though I'm not sure continuously. It is mostly used ironically to suggest things that no one could be publicly opposed to. Sometimes it was used with God and flag, but less frequently in the recent past.
http://www.usingenglish.com
« Last Edit: 19/03/2009 00:28:44 by echochartruse »
 

lyner

  • Guest
echo
I'm not trying to humanise it.
But I can't see how you can be so attached to the word "intelligence" without humanising it yourself. It so strongly implies purpose and design whereas I am saying that you need neither. We simply have a status quo and can propose a fairly logical set of occurrences which got us here. That does not have to infer purpose or design - it does, however, give a hope of extrapolating forward.
If you postulate a DD then, as things could change away from the pattern at any time, we may as well bend over and embrace Kismet as the way forward.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
echo
I'm not trying to humanise it.
But I can't see how you can be so attached to the word "intelligence" without humanising it yourself. It so strongly implies purpose and design whereas I am saying that you need neither. We simply have a status quo and can propose a fairly logical set of occurrences which got us here. That does not have to infer purpose or design - it does, however, give a hope of extrapolating forward.
If you postulate a DD then, as things could change away from the pattern at any time, we may as well bend over and embrace Kismet as the way forward.


purpose and designor fate

Evolution, you mentioned previously, provides the information to the DNA, (the information begins with evolution) but why? How? How does evolution know to give fish feet so they can walk on the earth, how does it know to give giraffes longer necks to reach higher, to make man erect to distinguish him from the chimp, could this be purposeful or fate?
Who / what, designed the complex information to do that? How did evolution come to have it/ How can it distinguish which information to send to the DNA and for what purpose? to pass it on to DNA? Surley there must be some '"intelligent' configuration to the information that evolution sends to that specific DNA which is obviously for a reason. Otherwise evolution could not distinguish, provide the information required to complet the task then everything on earth, universe whatever would all be the same or non existant.

Just the will to survive gives evidence to some type of intelligence.

Quote
and can propose a fairly logical set of occurrences
Logical do you need intelligents to be logical? How does this logic come about? if logical there must be a purpose or intention which requires some sort of intelligents. Maybe we have not understood this inteligents yet or found it but it seems logical to me there would need to be some sort of reasoning, intelligents, for this course of action.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2009 02:06:30 by echochartruse »
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Evolution does not "know" anything. Evolution is not an entity. It is a process. Different organisms merely survive and reproduce more successfully than others in certain environments,  so their offspring inherit those traits that were successful. When new variation is introduced by mutation and sexual recombination, those traits also affect the organism's survival & reproduction, and if they have a neutral or positive effect, they are conserved. Changes accumulate progressively over time. It's really not difficult to understand and accept.
 

lyner

  • Guest
stephan
I have to agree with you and to conclude that people who reject evolution just haven't grasped what is involved. It is a shiboleth amongst ideas. It is so much not part of their conceptual vocabulary that it becomes a 'blank' in the mental process of parsing and deconstructing statements they hear. It's a marmite concept which they reject without tasting.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Quote
Just the will to survive gives evidence to some type of intelligence.
Agreed - you could put it that way. But 'intelligence' is a behaviour pattern - it is a reaction to circumstances. As evolution progressed, this intelligence  improved (or became more complex) - just the same as other characteristics.

If you throw two sixes with a die, does that imply that the die, somehow, has intelligence? If a distant solar system ends up with a rocky planet in the Goldilocks region, does that prove the presence of intelligence or intention on the part of the orbiting stuff?

If you call yourself a Scientist, you will, in other circumstances, choose the simpler of two explanations for a phenomenon - assuming they both describe and account for the process. Why, when you come to this topic, do you want to go for the (far) more complicated explanation?
You conveniently ignore all that this 'intelligence' must involve (putting it in the 'there be dragons' bucket) and dismiss the logic which says that things could have occurred by chance. The numbers say that the chance explanation is quite possible - but IDists deny that, of course.  How can they kid themselves that they are having a scientific discussion?
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Hey Guys and Lady

The quest of science, in my very limited opinion, is to get as close to a Theory of Everything TEO.  Even Stephen Hawking said "Then we will know the mind of god" Don't jump on me for that statement I am well aware that he is an atheist.

Many physicists think we will come up with a TOE. But do we stop there or do we continue to advance towards it scientifically?. If must be to find this "as yet unknown source of everything" the "Uncaused Cause"  all existence. Like it or not this something, god/it/he/she/they/what/ID  must be out there and I think we humans are smart enough to find it, without descending into an infinity of religious, philosophical arguments.

I restate I am not religious and for anyone to attribute human like qualities to this source, whatever it is, is nonsense

As for me I really do not think our universe is the totality of all existence

Alan

« Last Edit: 19/03/2009 15:13:06 by Alan McDougall »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Alan
Your "something out there" is no less of a God for you than anyone else's God. You still imply that there is a purpose. That implies a consciousness and one can't avoid asking about the origin of that purpose. That doesn't actually get you anywhere beyond what 'Science minus a creator' can take you.

It would, as you say, be foolish to imagine we could ever have all the answers. No Scientist worth his / her salt would claim that. But do we want them?
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
If you throw two sixes with a die, does that imply that the die, somehow, has intelligence? If a distant solar system ends up with a rocky planet in the Goldilocks region, does that prove the presence of intelligence or intention on the part of the orbiting stuff?

Are you saying here that Evolution is throwing the die or that Evolution is the die?

If you are saying that Evolution is the die then I agree there is something which causes the action of evolution and it has to be able to differentiate and have some sort of intelligence
If you are saying that the die is Evolution then I may also agree, that it requires intelligence to have intention for the action of random outcome.

Evolution does not "know" anything. Evolution is not an entity. It is a process. Different organisms merely survive and reproduce more successfully than others in certain environments,  so their offspring inherit those traits that were successful.

Then maybe the organisms hold the key. If Evolution is only a process to transfer information to DNA for change, we must ask ourselves why that particular change came about and not another.

You still imply that there is a purpose. That implies a consciousness and one can't avoid asking about the origin of that purpose.

When I go to the beach my skin turn brown and it can do that because of how humans have evolved. Most species evolve to survive is that not a good purpose. Are you saying that things evolve but not for any purpose?

Alan
how did the big bang create our universe against the laws of physics that sustain it -----

Why should it be a stumbling block that we have not yet found an explanation for the BB which, necessarily, is not included in our present set of knowledge?


To my understanding everything has a reason and if we do not know the reason for it, then we should do our damnedest and go and find it

Alan

Alan, sophiecentaur, That is what my entire argument is about. We should not blindly accept anything. If 'it is not yet in our present set of knowledge' then conclusions can not be made based without knowledge.

No. Why make stuff up just so people can swallow it easier?

If something can’t be explained using one set of words, maybe it can with another set of words that have the same meaning which can explain it. Anyway who put the word “designer” there?

Does it really need to have a designer?

Maybe the intelligent design itself  does not need a ‘designer’ that like the information evolution sends to DNA it is already in existence and like the outcome of evolution there is a reason for the change.

Or should we be asking ourselves  ‘Where does the information that evolution sends to the DNA to alter species come from’. Who designed it.[/i ]

If you can feel comfortable thinking it “just exists” then to say that intelligent design requires someone to design it confuses me and maybe the intelligence “just exists” due to the environment, just like the information transmitted to the DNA by evolution just exisits.

There must be some sort of intelligence associated, just look around yourself, see nature.
Everything here on earth co existing. Earth, air, fire, water. It seems very well planned to me.

If it has nothing to do with intelligence then we who can design should be able to,  replicate, produce something more wonderful from nothing, from a sneeze. WAIT where did that sneeze come from, what sneezed it?
« Last Edit: 20/03/2009 02:23:34 by echochartruse »
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
rosy

Quote
I am genuinely interested in your views here, Alan... and anyone else who wants to explain to me what on earth ID is, if it's not merely an attempt to dress up religion in the trappings of science

The ID to me is simply the cause of existence. Much of what we observe in the universe suggests some sort of reasoning behind it. It is in my opinion the thing behind all reality that has no cause of its own and is the "PRIME MOVER OF EVERYTHING"

If science is truly the best method of unravelling truth, then it must prepare itself to meet any obstacle in its path, including religion and philosophy. Science must go beyond making angry statements about religious dogma etc and counter and refute it with sound logic, the sort of logic that will make religion think more profoundly about their ingrained unprovable ideas, based on nothing more than belief or faith

There is the God of the GAPS that religion refers to when a mystery of the universe is as yet unexplainable by scientific methodology, it is up to science to fill those GAPS and close the argument

Until science can come up with a better who? than religion it will never take its rightful place in society

If there is an ID and IT is hiding from us we must find it by logic and maybe that is the challenge

 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
I feel that this is a long-overdue response to the creationism proponents in this thread:





If you would just discard your preconceptions and actually learn more about the science that you are rejecting, this thread would not exist.
 

Offline demografx

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8196
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile

If one could take a cell phone back to the dark ages , this unfortunate person would have been burned at the stake.


That would depend on Who was the wireless Provider. :)
« Last Edit: 20/03/2009 06:40:32 by demografx »
 

Offline demadone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile

There must be some sort of intelligence associated, just look around yourself, see nature.
Everything here on earth co existing. Earth, air, fire, water. It seems very well planned to me.

If it has nothing to do with intelligence then we who can design should be able to, replicate, produce something more wonderful from nothing, from a sneeze. WAIT where did that sneeze come from, what sneezed it?

I like your arguement. Particularly so when you apply it to the complexity of formation of protein from amino acids. Scientists have tried even with purpose and intent to replicated the formation of a protein in laboratory conditions better than the organic soup and early earth and they have not be able to form even the most basic protein.

And at what stage did these accidental proteins start to learn from their environment to make decisions on how to improve themselves or protect their organism?

My opinion is that science cannot explain a wink about the formation of living things. Let alone be the judge of who or what made life.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Hi,

The sudden event of the unimaginably complex and huge molecule code of life we call the DNA molecule, needs an explanation for existence on a planet, much to young to have evolved this out of a random mix of elements into some primordial soup

If we took the Raj Ma haj  and got a  hypothetical trillion trillion trillion trillion monkeys throwing rocks at random from a great height for a trillion trillion trillion years would they ever create a Raj Mahala? . Of course not, but somehow the unbelievably more complex DNA molecule came into existence just a short while after the creation of our planet

No one would ever dispute that the Raj Mahala is a work of intelligent, so to dispute that the whole universe, our planet came into existence by a process of cosmological evolution , must also be explained, (in my view of course)

There is the augment that given enough time anything that can happen will happen, But has there really been sufficient time for all we see all around us in nature/universe, for all the huge complexity to have evolved without a guiding force behind it all?

Alan

Alan

Alan
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Don't you ever get tired of making such ignorant arguments?

Complex living systems didn't just pop into existence by chance. They arose by simple chemistry and physics.  The only people who say that complex things "just happen" are the creationists.

To make a protein, you need a sequence of nucleic acids that encodes a sequence of amino acids. Nucleic acids and amino acids are easily formed under natural conditions, and nucleic acid sequences can also be produced and replicated naturally. They can then behave as catalysts as in the case of RNA, until natural selection produces sequences that can encode proteins.  Look up Abiogenesis. In fact, here is a series of videos that explains the process in terms that any IDiot can understand.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=0696457CAFD6D7C9

Of course, none of you have taken note of anything we've explained to you, so I doubt you'll start now.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Alan - once again, I fear you have not been reading or paying attention to the posts, and in particular mine.  THIS IS NOT THE THREAD TO DISCUSS BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION VS PERCIEVED DESIGN.

As we've gone off topic once again, and nothing of real value can be added, I'm locking this thread.

Update - Apparently, my locking this thread was "a childish exercise of [my] perceived authority".  As I have clearly stated many times earlier in this thread that I intended to lock it if it continued to go off topic, and it once again went off topic, I decided to lock it.  Should enough people wish to continue this conversation, I shall unlock the thread.  Please contact me through private message shoudl you wish me to do so.
« Last Edit: 22/03/2009 14:25:42 by BenV »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length