The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Could the universe have been an act of an intelligent designer /chance  (Read 42747 times)

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
I read a very good book today (long haul flight from canada) called "13 things that dont make sense".  One topic was life and the other was death.  Very very deep and clever stuff.  Another topic raised was the constants of the universe.
and here is an interesting website: http://floridapoliticsarticles.blogspot.com/2005/11/stem-cells-are-intelligent-design.html.
To open your mind you have to listen to all sides of the story. But why does everyone think there is a human person called God invloved???? [?] ??? :o
 

lyner

  • Guest
echochartruse:
Where is the significance of the word "intelligent"? Why are you nitpicking about the use of that word?
Humans are intelligent - so are Chimps. Many other organisms display intelligence. If someone described stem cells as behaving intelligently - so what?
Humans 'design' things - so do some apes (at a simple level).
What have either of those terms got to do with proving that there is 'someone intelligent' out there who designed us?

If we are, indeed, a part of some experiment then, as I said before, whoever is responsible for the experiment must have come from somewhere. So it's just another 'turtles all the way down' argument. It's a total waste of time discussing it. If you believe that then you believe it and good luck to you. But don't try to get all logical and try to convince us. You are on to a loser.

If you could, perhaps, tell us (with some evidence) about this designer chap and how he came to be in existence????
 

Offline Alan McDougall

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

Point 1

Asymmetrical universe why??

I started a thread a while back with the question, why is the universe asymmetrical instead symmetrical? There was an equal amount of matter and antimatter at the moment of the big bang, these two opposing energy forms should have annihilated each other leaving the universe just a vast soup of gamma rays.

But luckily for us, this did not happen , the antimatter went elsewhere maybe someone monkeyed with creation back then allowing us to exist?

Point 2


The Big Bang , everything has a cause and effect except the Big Bang why?

One of the most basic laws of science is the Law of the Conservation of Energy: Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another. The universe could not have created itself using natural processes because nature did not exist before the universe came into existence. Something beyond nature must have created all the energy and matter that is observable today.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is often stated as the law of increasing entropy: "A natural process always takes place in such a direction as to cause an increase in the entropy of the universe." (John Williams, "Modern Physics," Page 210). The effect of this law is that unless there is a purposeful source of energy operating in a system, the various parts, molecules, etc., become less and less organized and more and more random. Thus the only means to maintain the theory of evolution in light of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is to conclude that, while chance combinations of simple molecules into very complex ones would be extremely rare, given enough time, it could happen.
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
When he says "intelligent design", he is simply referring to the development of the technology that he's using. He is absolutely not saying anything relevant to "Intelligent Design" Creationism, or real intelligence built into the cells. Also, often when scientists talk that way about things, they are using a mental shorthand. It's easier to say something that sounds like "the cells are smart" than it is to explain what is actually happening.

Quote
and they are not engineered, but arrived at by evolution. 

you do mean the 'theory' of Evolution dont you? I wouldn't want to think that people dont say what they mean.



Evolution is a fact. Scientific theory is the highest level of understanding about a group of phenomena. Evolution is not "just a theory", anymore than the theory of gravity is "just a theory".
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Thanks Stefan, I was just coming to that.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is often stated as the law of increasing entropy: "A natural process always takes place in such a direction as to cause an increase in the entropy of the universe." (John Williams, "Modern Physics," Page 210). The effect of this law is that unless there is a purposeful source of energy operating in a system, the various parts, molecules, etc., become less and less organized and more and more random. Thus the only means to maintain the theory of evolution in light of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is to conclude that, while chance combinations of simple molecules into very complex ones would be extremely rare, given enough time, it could happen.
You've answered your own concern there.  The Earth is subject to an enormous energy source - the sun.  The second law of thermodynamics requires a closed system, and that is not what we have here.  It in no way negates or reflects badly upon evolution.

Anyway - As I have said before, there are many other threads here to debate evolution/intelligent design, and they always go in the same ridiculous loops.  The origin of universe is a different issue, but I have already stated that it's pointless to postulate a designer, and daft to presume one.

I'll be locking this thread soon as it has gone very much off topic, and will soon descend into arguements, as these always do.

To those proponents of intelligent design, I will ask a question that I put to another forum member, feel free to reply or take it as rhetorical:

If an alternative mechanism, one that totally excluded any possibility of even considering an intelligent designer, but different to present day science, was proposed and backed up with a great deal of evidence, would you accept it?

I put this to a certain creationist that we have not seen online for a little while.  By admitting that he couldn't accept it, he admitted that his problem was not with the current theories, but the perceived threat to his deeply held beliefs.

Might I suggest you ask yourselves the same question?
 

Offline Alan McDougall

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

Before you lock this topic maybe I should answer the question I posted when I started the thread.

Could the universe be the result of an Intelligent Designer? "YES IT COULD EVEN EINSTEIN SAID EXACTLY THIS"


I just can not see why you want to lock this thread, no one is arguing, we are just debating in a robust way

Alan[/color]
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Alan, that's not an answer, it's just an assertion with argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy.
In fact, the whole "Argument from Design" has been shown to be completely vacuous time after time even through simple logic. It's mind-numbing to see it repeated so many times.
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Stop flogging the dead horse, please!
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
I would be locking the thread because it has gone off topic.  Also, everyone has had their say on the original topic, and nobody could possibly get anything more from continuing to discuss this.  There are two camps, those who see no point in entertaining the idea of an intelligent designer, and those who are certain it's a possibility.  Neither party will shift unless new evidence comes to light (and one party will not shift regardless of the evidence) - so what's the point?
 

lyner

  • Guest
AMcD
So where did this intelligent designer come from?
You have just offset the problem.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
I have to agree with BenV, this and similar issues have been flogged here many times and none do or can reach a satisfactory conclusion.

We will never discover the true origin of our own tiny little planet, let alone the whole universe, so I think all this postulating gets us absolutely nowhere at all.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

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

 

Quote
Alan, that's not an answer, it's just an assertion with argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy.
In fact, the whole "Argument from Design" has been shown to be completely vacuous time after time even through simple logic. It's mind-numbing to see it repeated so many times

Stefan the question or title of the tread was "could there be as case for an intelligent designer?" and my answer is "yes there could be an intelligent designer" "not there is an intelligent designer" there is a great difference to these two answers!!

There "could be an ID" "not there is an ID"

sophiecentaur

Quote
AMcD
So where did this intelligent designer come from?
You have just offset the problem.

If I knew that I would have to be the intelligent designer

Where does the universe come from?. how could it just have popped out of nowhere? did it have an original cause?

I simply cannot accept that there is any difference in trying to convince someone that the universe had no cause but it has an effect, makes no sense. This is just another take on the turtles all the way down dear fellow.

Where did the universe come from ==========================================="??????????????????????????"

Where did an Intelligent Designer come from================================="??????????????????????????"

Exactly the same questions about the exact same enigma

Alan

BenV

Ben,now you can have some fun and exercise your authority "Lock in those lyrics"  ;D
« Last Edit: 12/03/2009 20:38:00 by Alan McDougall »
 

Offline wolfekeeper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1092
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Yes, but the universe seems to run by simple rules. An 'intelligent designer' would have to be much more complex than that.

That's where Ockham's razor kicks in, right there.

Because science is based on Ockham's razor, an intelligent designer is never realistically going to be the default position; unless there's some serious, reproducible God activity going down; and personally I'll believe that when I see it (I'm not holding by breath).

In fact even if there was evidence of something that looked exactly like a God, Ockham's razor would force you to consider every other possible simpler explanation first.
 

lyner

  • Guest
"Turtles all the way down" is about the most complicated solution so you have to ditch it. One turtle would be just as bad, so we have to go for no turtles.

Why is that so unsatisfactory for some people? Is it insecurity? Would you like to talk about it? Oh, you have been.
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Quote
Stefan the question or title of the tread was "could there be as case for an intelligent designer?" and my answer is "yes there could be an intelligent designer" "not there is an intelligent designer" there is a great difference to these two answers!!

There "could be an ID" "not there is an ID"

The two really mean the same thing. Neither is any more true than the statement, "There are faeries at the bottom of my garden", or "I regularly ride my Invisible Pink Talking Flying Unicorn".
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
echochartruse:
Where is the significance of the word "intelligent"? Why are you nitpicking about the use of that word?
Humans are intelligent - so are Chimps. Many other organisms display intelligence. If someone described stem cells as behaving intelligently - so what?
sorry I must be in the wrong forum I thought this was " Could the universe have been an act of an intelligent designer "
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
"But Dr. McFadden is pulling a bait-and-switch: he is using relatively trivial examples of evolution #1 to bolster more controversial definitions of "evolution." Thus if by "evolution" one means universal common descent (evolution #2), or neo-Darwinian evolution (evolution #3), where the primary adaptive force building the complexity of life is unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations, then many scientists would argue that such "evolution" most certainly is not a fact."
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/is_evolution_a_theory_or_fact_2.html

I think that evolution being a fact is still being disputed in the scientific world, see above link.

Now random mutations may refer to stem cells growing the same as their host- changing from one type to another.

Anyway I just want to open your minds. I believe scientists should be creative thinking and not stop thinking just becasue someone thinks it is now 'FACT'
 

Offline Alan McDougall

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

Quote
The two really mean the same thing. Neither is any more true than the statement, "There are faeries at the bottom of my garden", or "I regularly ride my Invisible Pink Talking Flying Unicorn



The thread title again is could there be a Could the universe be an act of an Intelligent designer?, this is a question and my answer is yes there can be a case for an ID


Your fairies and pink unicorns are statements of fact and if taken seriously would put you in a nut house


Wolfkeeper


Quote
Yes, but the universe seems to run by simple rules. An 'intelligent designer' would have to be much more complex than that.

That's where Occam's razor kicks in, right there.

Because science is based on Occam's razor, an intelligent designer is never realistically going to be the default position; unless there's some serious, reproducible God activity going down; and personally I'll believe that when I see it (I'm not holding by breath).

In fact even if there was evidence of something that looked exactly like a God, Occam's razor would force you to consider every other possible simpler explanation first.

Highly intelligent people always try to get the simperlest answer to a question, so why do you suppose an ID would not do the same?

I disagree with your statement that the universe is sustained by simple rules, in fact the universe is unimaginably complex

Can you fathom supestring theory where there is a micro world of string particles that only Ed Witten can comprehend

: echochartruse


Quote
Now random mutations may refer to stem cells growing the same as their host- changing from one type to another

The view that evolution is driven by tiny random mutation begs the question, can anyone tell me about a positive mutation they have seen or heard about or written about.
« Last Edit: 12/03/2009 21:21:39 by Alan McDougall »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
"But Dr. McFadden is pulling a bait-and-switch: he is using relatively trivial examples of evolution #1 to bolster more controversial definitions of "evolution." Thus if by "evolution" one means universal common descent (evolution #2), or neo-Darwinian evolution (evolution #3), where the primary adaptive force building the complexity of life is unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations, then many scientists would argue that such "evolution" most certainly is not a fact."
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/is_evolution_a_theory_or_fact_2.html

I think that evolution being a fact is still being disputed in the scientific world, see above link.

Now random mutations may refer to stem cells growing the same as their host- changing from one type to another.

Anyway I just want to open your minds. I believe scientists should be creative thinking and not stop thinking just becasue someone thinks it is now 'FACT'

I'm afraid you can't believe a word that comes from the discovery institute - it's just creationist propaganda. 

Evolution is a fact, explained by the theory of evolution.  Just as gravity is a fact, and it's explained by the theory of gravitational attraction.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Highly intelligent people always try to get the simperlest answer to a question, so why do you suppose an ID would not do the same?

I disagree with your statement that the universe is sustained by simple rules, in fact the universe is unimaginably complex

Can you fathom supestring theory where there is a micro world of string particles that only Ed Witten can comprehend
But do you not see that by adding a designer, you immediately add a layer of complexity, and further questions? 

If the universe was incredibly simple, it would be made more complex by the idea of a designer.

If the universe is incredibly complex, it would be made more complex by the idea of a designer.

There is no reason to assume a designer, other than the fact that you want to.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Quote from: echochartruse
I think that evolution being a fact is still being disputed in the scientific world, see above link.
The link you referenced was not from the scientific world that I know about. That evolution is happening is an obvious fact that you only need look around you to discover. Darwin was simply one of the first to notice it.
Quote from: wolfekeeper
Yes, but the universe seems to run by simple rules. An 'intelligent designer' would have to be much more complex than that.

That's where Ockham's razor kicks in, right there.


Occam's razor is a very useful tool. That is what started me on a quest to understand how we went astray in the early 1900's by abandoning the perfectly natural Lorentz treatment of relativity phenomena based upon the premise: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. And instead adopted Einstein's theory which clearly violated Occam's razor.

Wiki article about Occam's razor

Quote from: from the link
Occam's razor, also Ockham's razor,[1] is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony", "law of economy", or "law of succinctness"): entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." An alternative version Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity." [2]

When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as an heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories. Here the same caveat applies to confounding topicality with mere simplicity. (A superficially simple phenomenon may have a complex mechanism behind it. A simple explanation would be simplistic if it failed to capture all the essential and relevant parts.)
« Last Edit: 12/03/2009 21:33:53 by Vern »
 

Offline Alan McDougall

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

Quote
There is no reason to assume a designer, other than the fact that you want to.

And like wise there is no reason to assume that "the universe is not the act of a great intellect". Even Einstein(I repeat) said that although in reality he was an atheist

There is no reason to disbelieve the possibilty of an ID other than the fact that you want to

Alan
 

Offline wolfekeeper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1092
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
There's also no reason to think that the universe wasn't created by a wave of his noodly appendage (pasta be upon you), last wednesday at 3:31pm GMT, unless you want to.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
BenV

Quote
There is no reason to assume a designer, other than the fact that you want to.

And like wise there is no reason to assume that "the universe is not the act of a great intellect". Even Einstein(I repeat) said that although in reality he was an atheist

There is no reason to disbelieve the possibilty of an ID other than the fact that you want to

Alan
I think you've missed the point - by introducing an element of design you have added further complication - therefore it is not worth doing.  Also, it is unfalsifiable and based on unfalsifiable  assumptions, so it is again not worth doing.

It's illogical to postulate an intelligent designer, and this is one prefectly good reason to disbelieve it.

If you're happy to accept it, then you must be happy to accept wolfekeeper's noodly appendages or any other explanation that anyone cares to put forward - you have to accept all of science fiction, all of fantasy, all deranged delusions (pink fairies and unicorns), as equally valid.  Are you happy to do so?  If not, why should your story have any more validity than those?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums