"Intelligent design" creationism basically finished

BidenPresident said:
The Wedge Document, the manifesto written by the Discovery Institute (DI) to outline the future proliferation of Intelligent Design (ID), was composed in 1998. It was leaked a long time ago, and you can see it here. If you read it, you’ll find that they’ve missed their temporal “goals” by a long shot.

In fact, Intelligent design has been discredited, and in the 2005 Kitzmiller decision in Pennsylvania, Judge Jones declared ID “not science” so that teaching it in public schools was prohibited as an incursion of religion into government. ID pretty much died after that, and there have been no further judicial decisions, so banning ID from public schools is the law. (Fingers crossed that the new, religiously conservative Supreme Court doesn’t change that.) ID sure as hell isn’t “the dominant perspective in science.”

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/01/08/intelligent-design-nearly-down-the-drain/
Click to expand...

I love how much you people hate having your dogma questioned.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Another McNamara fallacy.
Click to expand...

No idea what that means.

Random genetic mutation and genetic drift by definition are statistically random, and you would be hard pressed to explain how random or chance events demonstrate the directing and guiding hand of a creator.
 
BidenPresident said:
That is on you. I would not assert that a being I cannot comprehend did something. How would we know?
Click to expand...

look around you. there clearly is lots around you. the result is undeniable. the source is unknown and perhaps unknowable. until that changes only some form of faith is all we have.
 
Cypress said:
You can teach ID until the cows come home in a religion, philosophy, or social anthropology class.
Click to expand...

I don't have the slightest problem with an ontological belief about a higher organizing principle underlying the cosmos.

I believe it is hubris to assume our simian brains are capable of fathoming all of reality. We are cognitively limited by language, induction, and mathematical models. There are things about space, time, and energy which may lie beyond our primate comprehension.


But at the same time, trying to sneak in religiously motivated and untestable ideas into a science class is going to get slapped down by the courts every time.
 
Cypress said:
I don't have the slightest problem with an ontological belief about a higher organizing principle underlying the cosmos.

I believe it is hubris to assume our simian brains are capable of fathoming all of reality. We are cognitively limited by language, induction, and mathematical models. There are things about space, time, and energy which may lie beyond our primate comprehension.


But at the same time, trying to sneak in religiously motivated and untestable ideas into a science class is going to get slapped down by the courts every time.
Click to expand...

What's the testability of multiverses?
 
Yakuda said:
What's the testability of multiverses?
Click to expand...

Not testable. And I have said that.

Every cosmologist I've listened to just mentions it as sheer speculation. They also mention other grand, speculations such as a grand designer of the universe.

Your kidding yourself if you don't think a grand designer at least gets mentioned as a type of extravagant speculation in a cosmology class.
 
Cypress said:
Not testable. And I have said that.

Every cosmologist I've listened to just mentions it as sheer speculation. They also mention other grand, speculations such as a grand designer of the universe.

Your kidding yourself if you don't think a grand designer at least gets mentioned as a type of extravagant speculation in a cosmology class.
Click to expand...

No science class would talk about God as cause of the universe.
 
Cypress said:
I purposefully steered away from words like spiritual and deity because those anthropomorphic concepts for what amounts to a metaphysical question of ontology.

If I had to use a human concept, I am inclined to use the Neo-confucian concept of Li, which is thought of as a higher organizing principle underlying the cosmos. Something beyond physics and chemistry.

I previously discussed several possibilities for the origin of the Big Bang -->

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...nism-basically-finished&p=5459082#post5459082

But all of these explanations have problems.

We couldn't explain what this higher organizing principle came from, or why it caused the big bang.

On the other hand, invoking a quantum fluctuation for the cause of the big bang has it's own problems. If we went to something from nothing in the blink of an eye, there shouldn't have been laws of physics in the nothingness, and there wouldn't have been a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to tell virtual particles to create themselves.

It's possible our simian brains just don't have the cognitive capacity to fathom the reasons for the cosmos. And we might not even really understand space and time adequately to grasp any sort of higher reality or hyperdimensions.

But it sure is fun to speculate!
Click to expand...

Since the universe has been around for 14 billion yrs, we have no witnesses. Science can backtrack to microseconds after the big bang. They can explain how chemical ingredients, the building blocks , would be made. That can all be shown. It does not require faith. Religion has nothing to recommend it. It was a product of man's imagination in an attempt to explain what science did not know in the beginning. It is a dwindling system since science has chopped its tenets down.
Man created god and religion. That is why we have thousands of them.
 
Nordberg said:
Since the universe has been around for 14 billion yrs, we have no witnesses. Science can backtrack to microseconds after the big bang. They can explain how chemical ingredients, the building blocks , would be made. That can all be shown. It does not require faith. Religion has nothing to recommend it. It was a product of man's imagination in an attempt to explain what science did not know in the beginning. It is a dwindling system since science has chopped its tenets down.
Man created god and religion. That is why we have thousands of them.
Click to expand...

Agree. I have no problem with religion, just don't pretend it is rational.
 
BidenPresident said:
No science class would talk about God as cause of the universe.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. There's nothing wrong with mentioning a grand designer as one type of speculation people engage in. It all depends on context.

The cosmology class I had with Dr Mark Whittle mentions a grand designer as a speculation some people invoke. He doesn't say if he agrees with it, he says it is untestable and has problems as an explanation.

The astronomy class I took with Dr. Alex Fillipenko mentions that some people speculate God is the reason for the fine tuning of the universe, but that this can't be scientifically testable.

There's nothing wrong with speculation in science. Einstein imagined the universe was static and infinitely old and had always existed in the form we see it.

This was before the Big Bang theory.

Einstein wanted to believe in a static and infinitely old Universe because it was philosophically more pleasing to him than a universe with a definite origin point.

He even added an arbitrary cosmological constant to his field equations to force the universe to be static.
 
Cypress said:
Incorrect. There's nothing wrong with mentioning a grand designer as one type of speculation people engage in. It all depends on context.

The cosmology class with Dr Mark Whittle mentions a grand designer as a speculation some people invoke. He doesn't say if he agrees with it, he says it is untestable and has problems as an explanation.

The astronomy class I took with Dr. Alex Fillipenko mentions that some people speculate God is the reason for the fine tuning of the universe, but that this can't be scientifically testable.

There's nothing wrong with speculation in science. Einstein imagined the universe was static and infinitely old and had always existed in the form we see it.

This was before the Big Bang theory.

Einstein wanted to believe in a static and infinitely old Universe because it was philosophically more pleasing to him than a universe with a definite origin point.

He doesn't even added an arbitrary cosmological constant to his field equations to force the universe to be static.
Click to expand...

Any scientist saying God created the universe, with no evidence, is incompetent.
 
Cypress said:
Not testable. And I have said that.

Every cosmologist I've listened to just mentions it as sheer speculation. They also mention other grand, speculations such as a grand designer of the universe.

Your kidding yourself if you don't think a grand designer at least gets mentioned as a type of extravagant speculation in a cosmology class.
Click to expand...

I actually read kind of a cool thing where they might be able to see "dents" or fluctuations in our own universe that might indicate adjacent universes.
 
BartenderElite said:
I actually read kind of a cool thing where they might be able to see "dents" or fluctuations in our own universe that might indicate adjacent universes.
Click to expand...

Yes, supposedly the idea is that if one can statistically demonstrate unexpected patterns in the distribution of energy in the cosmic microwave background radiation, it might be a line of evidence that our observable universe is interacting with adjacent universes.

I think it's a cool idea, but I don't know how convincing it would be to the astrophysics community at large.
 
Cypress said:
Yes, supposedly the idea is that if one can statistically demonstrate unexpected patterns in the distribution of energy in the cosmic microwave background radiation, it might be a line of evidence that our observable universe is interacting with adjacent universes.

I think it's a cool idea, but I don't know how convincing it would be to the astrophysics community at large.
Click to expand...

The Spirit world isn't subject to the laws of physics.
It's on a higher plane.
 
BidenPresident said:
Any scientist saying God created the universe, with no evidence, is incompetent.
Click to expand...

Your responding to what you wish I wrote, rather than what I actually wrote.

Scientists aren't paid to teach atheism. There is no reason to be afraid of mentioning an unknown creative force underlying nature. Doesn't mean you have to agree with it.


The abiogenesis class I took from Robert Hazen says that a miracle is one type of speculation about the origin of life

Abiogenesis

1) The origin of life may have been a miracle.
2) The origin of life was an event fully consistent with chemistry and physics, but one that was almost infinitely unlikely and required an improbable sequence of numerous steps.
3) The universe is organized in such a way that life is an inevitable consequence of chemistry, given an appropriate environment and sufficient time.

Source credit: Dr. Robert Hazen, George Mason University
Click to expand...
Why be afraid to at least mention it?

The job of the scientist is not to deny that speculation includes a grand designer. But it is to focus attention on what is testable with the tools of science. And it's fine to identify problems with any such speculations
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top