ID off-topic comments (split from ID game by Lothar)

[Bet51987]

I love how you use the E = mc^2 formula, Bettina. Isn't another fundamental law of physics 'Energy can neither be created nor destroyed'? If you factor in both fundamentals, up to the exact moment of the 'big bang' you get the equation of E=0, thus, the moment AFTER the big bang would mean that Mass = E/c^2 = 0/~180,000^2 = 0. The 'Big Bang' out of chaos is just mathematically and physically impossible. (This does not factor in a universe devoid of 'physics' before the 'big bang')

I just think that alleged "pure energy" that existed before the 'Big Bang' had to come from somewhere. Down to it's rudimentary level, energy is too perfect to have developed out of chaos, out of chance. I think it could only have been formed by an intelligent design.

Quarks pop in out of nothing all the time. They don't stay long though, and pop out again. Our universe could have been nothing more than a quark that popped in and expanded rapidly. At this point in time, no-one in the quantum world can be sure of what happened to cause our singuarity to expand.

If you feel better calling that area before plank time "ID" so be it. God is running out of places to be so that gap is just as good. Sorry, I just don't see where ID fits anywhere.
Bettina

[Phoenix Red]

I love how you use the E = mc^2 formula, Bettina. Isn't another fundamental law of physics 'Energy can neither be created nor destroyed'? If you factor in both fundamentals, up to the exact moment of the 'big bang' you get the equation of E=0, thus, the moment AFTER the big bang would mean that Mass = E/c^2 = 0/~180,000^2 = 0. The 'Big Bang' out of chaos is just mathematically and physically impossible. (This does not factor in a universe devoid of 'physics' before the 'big bang')

Ok it's been a while since I was in physics but I don't see how this statement adds up. Energy = 0? Mass = 0, but energy can exist outside of mass form. That seems like a pretty weird assumption since there clearly WAS energy, or the whole thing wouldn't have exploded.

ps haven't I articulated my hypothesis that the creation of 4+ dimensions had something to do with it to you in gate? I know you said no physics universe notwithstanding.

Correct me if I'm just behind with the times in physics theory.

[DCrazy]

SR, no you don't. There are a couple of things at play here.

Quantum physics takes over on a scale of the universe at Big-Bang stage. According to the theory, the universe was damn near a singularity at that point.

Because of the correlation between mass and energy, since its energy approached infinity so did its mass. This still poses a problem (E=mc^2 => E/m=c^2 => infinity/infinity=c^2). infinity/infinity, however, is NOT necessarily 0. In fact, if one were to do the math, it might even work out that relationship between energy and mass results in a ratio similar to c^2*x/x (i.e. for every unit of mass increased, energy increases by c^2). In which case, when you take the limit at x=infinity, you wind up with c^2.

I'm not familiar enough with the derivations of Einstein's formulae do that math, however.

[Shoku]

Lothar wrote: "There's a rule that says rules have to come from intelligences? What intelligence made up that rule? Or is that rule the exception?"

That deduction is based on logic. You cannot have order without defined limits. Chaos is without order, and therefore without defined limits. It takes an intelligence to define limits, therefore you cannot have order without an intelligence.

"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
Mark Twain

[Lothar]

Lothar wrote: "There's a rule that says rules have to come from intelligences? What intelligence made up that rule? Or is that rule the exception?"

That deduction is based on logic. You cannot have order without defined limits. Chaos is without order, and therefore without defined limits. It takes an intelligence to define limits, therefore you cannot have order without an intelligence.

No order without defined limits? According to who? Why can't there be order with undefined limits?

Chaos is without order? Perhaps you should study more chaos -- there is much hidden order within.

You need an intelligence to define limits? Why? Why can't limits simply exist?

[Shoku]

No order without defined limits? According to who? Why can't there be order with undefined limits?

Chaos is without order? Perhaps you should study more chaos -- there is much hidden order within.

You need an intelligence to define limits? Why? Why can't limits simply exist?

The meaning of Chaos:
1. A condition or place of great disorder or confusion.
2. A disorderly mass; a jumble: The desk was a chaos of papers and unopened letters.
3. often Chaos The disordered state of unformed matter and infinite space supposed in some cosmogonic views to have existed BEFORE THE ORDERED UNIVERSE.
4. Mathematics. A dynamical system that has a sensitive dependence on its initial conditions.
5. Obsolete. An abyss; a chasm.

Regarding meaning No.3 above: Chaos, if left to itself, can only produce more chaos. For the ORDERED universe to form limits had to come into existence that affected the chaotic state. Since chaos left to itself cannot produce the necessary order, it must have been introduced by a non-chaotic source. Only intelligence can bring order to chaos, just as only intelligence can arrange a bunch of chairs in repeating patterns in an auditorium.

[Lothar]

For the ORDERED universe to form limits had to come into existence that affected the chaotic state.

I've never heard anyone suggest there was a chaotic universe that pre-existed the ordered one. The universe didn't become ordered from chaos; it became something from not-something. There wasn't a "chaos" to give order to at all.

It's not as though there was a universe where all the constants of physics were changing unpredictably, and then we needed an intelligence to pick specific values for those constants. It's not as though there was a universe without laws of physics and then the laws of physics were introduced. That would be order out of chaos.

What we had, instead, was order out of nothingness. That's a whole different sort of problem.

[Bet51987]

No order without defined limits? According to who? Why can't there be order with undefined limits?

Chaos is without order? Perhaps you should study more chaos -- there is much hidden order within.

You need an intelligence to define limits? Why? Why can't limits simply exist?

The meaning of Chaos:
1. A condition or place of great disorder or confusion.
2. A disorderly mass; a jumble: The desk was a chaos of papers and unopened letters.
3. often Chaos The disordered state of unformed matter and infinite space supposed in some cosmogonic views to have existed BEFORE THE ORDERED UNIVERSE.
4. Mathematics. A dynamical system that has a sensitive dependence on its initial conditions.
5. Obsolete. An abyss; a chasm.

Regarding meaning No.3 above: Chaos, if left to itself, can only produce more chaos. For the ORDERED universe to form limits had to come into existence that affected the chaotic state. Since chaos left to itself cannot produce the necessary order, it must have been introduced by a non-chaotic source. Only intelligence can bring order to chaos, just as only intelligence can arrange a bunch of chairs in repeating patterns in an auditorium.

This doesn't seem right. It is universally accepted that the universe began in a much more ordered state than it is now. It looks ordered because its had billions of years to gravitationaly spread out and produce ordered systems.

The universe began in a state of zero entropy and is now expanding and according to the second law of thermodynamics the universe will continue to expand and become "less" ordered.

For example, our Milky Way galaxy looks ordered, but (due to gravity) is on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy, and will become less ordered and more chaotic as those two systems eventually combine.

There is no intellegent design here, the arrow of time goes from order to chaos, like the deck of cards. Once shuffled, no amount of reshuffle will produce an ordered deck.

Bettina

Edit...I didn't see Lothars post above mine.

[Sting_Ray]

It just seems like all of this is speculation. Saying that it wasn't necessarily ZERO energy at the point before the big bang is just a conjecture. If there was energy to spark the big bang, it would have to have originated from somewhere... even a prior universe. Which sounds plausible. However, this is like the whole "Whatever you say plus one!" argument. I'm not debunking the big bang... it's the most logical explanation and to say it's bogus is to be both naive and hypocritical. But to base your theories on "faith" that a 'quark' or whatever particle just appeared out of nowhere and sparked the universe to life is equally hypocritical. You're counter-indicating the very physical theories you're trying to prove, and basing your theories on faith-based conjectures to DISPROVE a faith-based conjecture.

Energy in ANY form can not create itself. A quark popping in at random had to have an origin. It may be a subatomic, or even sub-quantum reaction that we may PERCEIVE as "something out of nothing", but it's illogical to just assume that is the case.

Now, to play the Devil's Advocate, Intelligent design and creationism is EASIER to accept as truth because it takes away the uncertainty factor. It also makes us feel better... to think we were just a case of "order out of chaos" makes me feel like a cosmic accident... like I'm a byproduct. Which could be the case of course.

Oh well whatever. I don't know what I'm talking about =)

[Bet51987]

It just seems like all of this is speculation. Saying that it wasn't necessarily ZERO energy at the point before the big bang is just a conjecture. If there was energy to spark the big bang, it would have to have originated from somewhere... even a prior universe. Which sounds plausible. However, this is like the whole "Whatever you say plus one!" argument. I'm not debunking the big bang... it's the most logical explanation and to say it's bogus is to be both naive and hypocritical. But to base your theories on "faith" that a 'quark' or whatever particle just appeared out of nowhere and sparked the universe to life is equally hypocritical. You're counter-indicating the very physical theories you're trying to prove, and basing your theories on faith-based conjectures to DISPROVE a faith-based conjecture.

Energy in ANY form can not create itself. A quark popping in at random had to have an origin. It may be a subatomic, or even sub-quantum reaction that we may PERCEIVE as "something out of nothing", but it's illogical to just assume that is the case.

Now, to play the Devil's Advocate, Intelligent design and creationism is EASIER to accept as truth because it takes away the uncertainty factor. It also makes us feel better... to think we were just a case of "order out of chaos" makes me feel like a cosmic accident... like I'm a byproduct. Which could be the case of course.

Oh well whatever. I don't know what I'm talking about =)

I didn't say the quark sparked our universe. I just gave that example because most scientists believe we started from a non-existant point and in one billionth of a second was the size of an auditorium.

You are right when you say that energy could have come from another universe. The studies of string theory, branes, etc are opening up new thoughts and right now, I'm reading a book called "Hyperspace" which deals with the possibility of connecting universes. (I luv this stuff)

Yes....Id and creationism is the easier way, but you will be dealing with things that can never be tested. No instruments, laboratories, atom smashers, accelerators, etc, will ever produce the answer you would be looking for. I can't accept that for myself and won't.

Your not a byproduct and you know more than you think you know. Good luck soldier boy...if your still in the army.

Bettina

[Weyrman]

To carry on a bit from Stingray's comments, no matter how much you want to debate, where you stand on an issue like ID or Evolution depends on your beliefs.

ID, by its very nature, points to a creator designer, ie God. Little green men or spores from space arguements are invalid as they rely on evolution at some point. The concept of a creator designer God, brings up the issue of accountability and his right to judge us, his creations. Because this very point, people who are anti God oppose things like ID as they are abhorrent to their belief system. They will not entertain the idea of putting themselves under the authority of a god.

Evolution then, becomes the only other alternative in town, as flawed and unproven as it is, as it nicely does away with the concept of a creator God and all that goes with it.

And don't howl at me that "science" has proved evolution. All "evidence" so far has been presented with the "interpretation" that fits the concept. In reality, bits of bone, tooth and partial skeletons have been hailed "proof" with no solid indisputable evidence that directly links them together in any sort of logical, provable sequence. Repeatable experiments have not been done showing useful natural addition of genetic code to the human genome. Evolution is a theory, not proved by science, nor falsified by science, but preached far and wide as absolute truth with as much ferver and fanatacism as any religous fundamentalist by people for whom the alternative and its implications are unthinkable.

For me personally, the logical conclusions of evolution are that:
I am nothing but a result of incredible cosmic chance
Therefore I have no intrinsic worth and neither does anyone else so I can treat them however I like
Survival of the fittest and Law of the jungle are totally valid concepts, as well as the concept of racial superiority
I have no reason, no purpose, no hope of eternity
Eat, Drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

Of ID and therefore GOD:
I (humanity) was designed and created for a purpose
For this reason I have great intrinsic worth and so does everyone else, and they must be treated with this in mind.
I am guarenteed of eternity.

To me personally, this sounds a much better option.

[Bet51987]

To carry on a bit from Stingray's comments, no matter how much you want to debate, where you stand on an issue like ID or Evolution depends on your beliefs.

ID, by its very nature, points to a creator designer, ie God. Little green men or spores from space arguements are invalid as they rely on evolution at some point. The concept of a creator designer God, brings up the issue of accountability and his right to judge us, his creations. Because this very point, people who are anti God oppose things like ID as they are abhorrent to their belief system. They will not entertain the idea of putting themselves under the authority of a god.

Evolution then, becomes the only other alternative in town, as flawed and unproven as it is, as it nicely does away with the concept of a creator God and all that goes with it.

And don't howl at me that "science" has proved evolution. All "evidence" so far has been presented with the "interpretation" that fits the concept. In reality, bits of bone, tooth and partial skeletons have been hailed "proof" with no solid indisputable evidence that directly links them together in any sort of logical, provable sequence. Repeatable experiments have not been done showing useful natural addition of genetic code to the human genome. Evolution is a theory, not proved by science, nor falsified by science, but preached far and wide as absolute truth with as much ferver and fanatacism as any religous fundamentalist by people for whom the alternative and its implications are unthinkable.

For me personally, the logical conclusions of evolution are that:
I am nothing but a result of incredible cosmic chance
Therefore I have no intrinsic worth and neither does anyone else so I can treat them however I like
Survival of the fittest and Law of the jungle are totally valid concepts, as well as the concept of racial superiority
I have no reason, no purpose, no hope of eternity
Eat, Drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

Of ID and therefore GOD:
I (humanity) was designed and created for a purpose
For this reason I have great intrinsic worth and so does everyone else, and they must be treated with this in mind.
I am guarenteed of eternity.

To me personally, this sounds a much better option.

First, Its not a matter of options, its a matter of what is the truth.
Second, Evolution is more than just "bits of bones" but to save argument, I won't go there.

Bettina

[Weyrman]

Or is it what we consider to be the truth?

[Kilarin]

ID, by its very nature, points to a creator designer, ie God. Little green men or spores from space arguements are invalid as they rely on evolution at some point.

The Naturalist also claim that Evolution, by it's very nature, denies a God. And yet the theory was hardly born before various groups of Christians adopted theories of "assisted Evolution" or whatnot.

All you have to do to adapt Naturalisim to ID is to suggest that creatures with a simpler biology (one lacking in irreducibly complex machines), DID evolve somewhere else, then used their intelligence to build more complicated forms of life. (leading to us).

Or better yet, say that in another universe where the laws of physics happened to be very favorable to evolution, life and intelligence, naturally, evolved. Those creatures then, for whatever reasons, used their intelligence to kick start OUR universe into existance (specifying all of our natural laws by the parameters with which the kickstarted the big bang).
Sounds crazy, but there are serious theorists out there right now saying that it might be possible to spawn new universes off of our own. (Anyone who isn't shocked by Quantum Physics didn't really listen when it was explained)

Now, No, I don't buy any of the above explanations. I'm just saying that in a philosophical arena, they CAN be legitimatly argued.

[Palzon]

For me personally, the logical conclusions of evolution are that:
I am nothing but a result of incredible cosmic chance
Therefore I have no intrinsic worth and neither does anyone else so I can treat them however I like
Survival of the fittest and Law of the jungle are totally valid concepts, as well as the concept of racial superiority
I have no reason, no purpose, no hope of eternity
Eat, Drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

Of ID and therefore GOD:
I (humanity) was designed and created for a purpose
For this reason I have great intrinsic worth and so does everyone else, and they must be treated with this in mind.
I am guarenteed of eternity.

To me personally, this sounds a much better option.

then lucky for us all that you believe in god. this is what lies beneath your religious dogma? the cynical view that if not for god then f*ck all? what an impoverished view.

[El Ka Bong]

OOh What a throbbing thread ! A derivative of the orginal, a heavy off shoot !

I have noted many examples of implicit ID in the universe, meaning that to me it's not all entropic chaos. The conscious universe I know is all about imbibing things with meaning.

I invoke String Theory !

http://tena4.vub.ac.be/beyondstringtheo ... sions.html

All this we are here in this now, is consciousness talking about itself, only aware of itself in 3 + 1 dimensions. While being alive, ID is trying to be noted, percieved, theorized about in just these 4 dimensions of space and time.

... And so I suggest that when we are awake, we 'fall' into these mere 4 dimensions. When we are awake, conscious, it is like a mercurial film of self reflective awareness that's stuck under the footprint of a much bigger, more complex and multidimensional universe than we can ever know.

Mercury is an 'old' image of alchemy, the shiny liquid metal that pours into the shapes of meaning and the universe.

When we sleep, or are dead, who knows what is really going on. Where do 'we go' when asleep... where do 'we go' as conscious beings when we die..? when the mercurial awareness goes away ?

In being alive and aware, we're smeared into 4 dimensions, gravity impales us into being awake. But what if there are up to 10 dimensions composing the universe. .. .? How do we explain or note ID in this context; from that mercurial membrane of consciousness that comes and goes in just 4 of 10 of these 'dimensions' ... ?

The luminous universe, all the matter that emits radiation, from DNA to Quasars is a mere 5% of the universe known to us. The rest is Dark Matter and Dark Energy... 95 % is unperceptible to us as of yet !! Howcome we can still decipher ID in that !? .. pheww .. ! But we do ! patterns are everywhere !

[Sting_Ray]

To use string-theory against you... If you factor in more than the perceived dimensions, any and quite possibly ALL of our physical laws are potentially untrue. You can't call ANY origin theory viable until you can perceive in all dimensions. There are no viable arguments if that's your base. However, we can't debunk what we can't perceive now can we?

[El Ka Bong]

.. Being the "Off topic comments" thread, I was just musing that most of our observations about ID ( or whatever) are 'stuck' in this state of consciousness, a very small part of the universe.

I'm a lay-person grasping at string theory, I'm not a physicist, but watch out; just like when we used to only know that world was "flat", now the Universe is appearing to be multidimensional ...!

So the Universe is much stranger than we could ever know. If we can decipher patterns that suggest any amount of 'design' is happening way down here in the mere 4 dimensions we inhabit, then the potential for intended or 'independent' design must be way more complex than we know in a 9 + 1 dimensional universe.

... an "off topic" comment, that's all... Read more about String Theory; http://tena4.vub.ac.be/beyondstringtheory/index2.html

[Bet51987]

Actually M-Theory goes a little beyond strings. This is Max Tegmarks site that you may find interesting. I always thought that our universe and everything in it was not unique.

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.html

If you would like to learn about Physics, go here but you have to behave. I've learned more there than in school.

http://www.scienceforums.net/

Bettina

[Shoku]

And here is another interesting link:

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

[Sarge]

... and another

http://my.execpc.com/~skaufman/Bookintro.html

[Top Gun]

And here is another interesting link:

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

No offense, but that link's full of a lot of bad science. The arguments against the presence of dark matter jump out particularly strongly. He makes a distinction between dark matter and MACHOs, but for all we know, what we're calling "dark matter" may very well be almost completely made up of MACHOs; it's one of the possibilities that's still open. And his claim that most astronomy-interested people outside of the field of astronomy don't support the Big Bang is just laughable. In terms of the Standard Model and general relativity, the Big Bang is well understood (at least after the Planck Time, but that's another topic) and almost universally accepted in the scientific community. One person's opinion doesn't change all of that.

[Shoku]

One person's opinion doesn't change all of that

Tell that to Galileo.

Seriously, no one knows everything. That's why scientific theory keeps changing. Read the guy's book. "Dark Matter, Missing Planets, and New Ccomets," and you may find some interesting things there - definately a different way of looking at the universe. His disscusion about gravity is very intriguing. Science needs people who think out-of-the-box, that's how new discoveries are made. Just ask Galileo.

[Top Gun]

Actually, Galileo wasn't as "out-of-the-box" as you might think. He didn't come out of left field, as Einstein did with general relativity. He based his conclusions on Newton's law of gravitational attraction and Kepler's three laws of planetary motion, and the heliocentric model of the solar system had been proposed long before even Copernicus. I'm not saying that Galileo shouldn't be praised; he was one of the greatest scientific minds in history. If you take a closer look at most of these great minds, though, you'll find that they based what they did on the work of those who came before ("standing on the shoulders of giants," as Newton himself put it). It's true that there are rare occasions when a scientist singlehandedly makes a great leap in a certain field; while Einstein's theory of special relativity most likely would have been derived by others within a few years, his ideas on general relativity pushed physics ahead by decades. However, for the most part, science relies on progressive gains in knowledge. That's why it's not only natural but absolutely right to be skeptical of a lone voice claiming to revolutionize a certain field by a particular discovery (take the recent case of a scientist claiming he's observed electrons at an energy level lower than ground state, which would effectively rewrite all of quantum mechanics). People like this shouln't be rejected out of principle, but their work should be given a hell of a lot of scrutiny before it can even begin to be accepted.

As a side note, I don't think this counts as ID discussion, but seeing as how the phrase "off-topic" is in the thread title, I don't see any harm.

[Bet51987]

Well, since my comment placed in the ID "Game" got deleted, (my first deleted post ) I had an immediate flashback to the religious instructor in school who yells at you and then calls your parents if you do not abide by his rules or take his instructions seriously.

One poster made a comment about what the poll is indicating and it got deleted. Then I made one asking why his post was deleted and why the original poster has not contributed to the game anymore. That got deleted too. I thought those posts related to the thread.

Its interesting how the ID thread and my school instructor have similar frames of mind about ID.
Anyway, I am glad I am in the majority of those who voted and see ID for what it really is.

Bettina

[Lothar]

Well, since my comment placed in the ID "Game" got deleted

I did write my moderator note earlier in the thread in English, right? I'm pretty sure I clearly stated that if you're going to post, follow the rules set forth in the first post -- analyze the previous scenario and give your own. Random comments (even those saying something about the poll) don't belong.

I made one asking why his post was deleted

See that little "pm" thing above my post? That's how you send me a private message. If you have a question about why a moderator is doing something, start by sending them a PM.

You'll also notice the way I responded to you (in the PM I sent): I quoted the aforementioned moderator note. Please take the time to read in the future, and if you have questions, send a PM.

Its interesting how the ID thread and my school instructor have similar frames of mind about ID.

It's amazing to me how dogmatic you and a number of others are on this subject. Like, if you see the letters I and D in close proximity, you just have to step up in opposition. You're not interested in looking at what's actually being said, you just know that ID = bad. Never mind that what I'm calling ID and what your instructors call ID aren't even the same thing. You seem to have the same frame of mind about ID as your instructors likely had about evolution -- you don't care to learn about it or understand it, you just want to oppose it for ideological reasons.

I've been there, on both sides. I got my masters degree studying evolutionary genetics, and I had Christians who treated me like a heretic because I'd dare analyze something off-limits to their narrow and dogmatic worldview. Because they viewed evolution as contrary to their religion (even though it really isn't) they felt it was their duty to oppose me studying it. Now I'm looking at intelligent design, mostly for its application in textual analysis, and I have Secularists treating me like a heretic because I'd dare analyze something off-limits to their narrow and dogmatic worldview. Because you view ID as contrary to your religion (even though, in the sense I'm talking about it, it isn't) you seem to feel it's your duty to oppose me talking about it.

---

Oh, and you're not in the majority of those who voted. Last I checked, there were 31 votes -- 15 that said design can never be detected, and 16 that said it can be detected at least sometimes.

Not that being in the majority makes you right, of course. I'll say directly... every person within that 15 is wrong, at least if they answered the question that was actually asked. Design *can* be detected, and in fact we do it all the time. You do it when you check your e-mail and delete spam. You did it (unsuccessfully) when you guessed at my motives for deleting posts. Archaeologists and anthropologists do it whenever they find an ancient tool.

If the question was "can the design of biological things be detected?" or "can the design of the universe be detected?" or "can design within the cell be detected?" then there's room for disagreement. Based on the way you've responded, I bet that's the question you and the rest of the 15 imagined was being asked. All this really shows is that there are at least 15 of you whose preconceptions and biases on this subject are so strong that you read in pretexts or subtexts that aren't there.

[Bet51987]

I did write my moderator note earlier in the thread in English, right? I'm pretty sure I clearly stated that if you're going to post, follow the rules set forth in the first post -- analyze the previous scenario and give your own. Random comments (even those saying something about the poll) don't belong.

No problem.

See that little "pm" thing above my post? That's how you send me a private message. If you have a question about why a moderator is doing something, start by sending them a PM.

You'll also notice the way I responded to you (in the PM I sent): I quoted the aforementioned moderator note. Please take the time to read in the future, and if you have questions, send a PM.

I didn't say anything that personal that required a pm. At least I didn't think so.

Its interesting how the ID thread and my school instructor have similar frames of mind about ID.

It's amazing to me how dogmatic you and a number of others are on this subject. Like, if you see the letters I and D in close proximity, you just have to step up in opposition. You're not interested in looking at what's actually being said, you just know that ID = bad. Never mind that what I'm calling ID and what your instructors call ID aren't even the same thing. You seem to have the same frame of mind about ID as your instructors likely had about evolution -- you don't care to learn about it or understand it, you just want to oppose it for ideological reasons.

No matter how you use the letters ID, or who spells it, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the intention is to prove Intellegent Design in the Universe, which implies a creator, which implies a god. I'm not stupid, and the reasons I oppose it are many. Forced religion is one.

There is nothing to understand or learn about ID because there is no evidence or any predictive information to learn from. It is just two words that cannot support itself yet wants to be considered valid and be taught (forced) along with "accepted" science in schools. Its core is based on untestable beliefs and ideas and its nature is undeniably religious....speaking of dogmatic.

I've been there, on both sides. I got my masters degree studying evolutionary genetics, and I had Christians who treated me like a heretic because I'd dare analyze something off-limits to their narrow and dogmatic worldview. Because they viewed evolution as contrary to their religion (even though it really isn't) they felt it was their duty to oppose me studying it. Now I'm looking at intelligent design, mostly for its application in textual analysis, and I have Secularists treating me like a heretic because I'd dare analyze something off-limits to their narrow and dogmatic worldview. Because you view ID as contrary to your religion (even though, in the sense I'm talking about it, it isn't) you seem to feel it's your duty to oppose me talking about it.

Thats not fair. I don't oppose you, I admire you and I always have. I just oppose ID (not you) in any form because of the reasons I've given in other topics. There is NO empirical evidence to support it. If you know of some..show me.

Oh, and you're not in the majority of those who voted. Last I checked, there were 31 votes -- 15 that said design can never be detected, and 16 that said it can be detected at least sometimes.

Not that being in the majority makes you right, of course. I'll say directly... every person within that 15 is wrong, at least if they answered the question that was actually asked. Design *can* be detected, and in fact we do it all the time. You do it when you check your e-mail and delete spam. You did it (unsuccessfully) when you guessed at my motives for deleting posts. Archaeologists and anthropologists do it whenever they find an ancient tool.

If the question was "can the design of biological things be detected?" or "can the design of the universe be detected?" or "can design within the cell be detected?" then there's room for disagreement. Based on the way you've responded, I bet that's the question you and the rest of the 15 imagined was being asked. All this really shows is that there are at least 15 of you whose preconceptions and biases on this subject are so strong that you read in pretexts or subtexts that aren't there.

I'm sorry your upset and to have offended you but don't be mad at the other 14 because of me. I just want facts.

Bettina

[Lothar]

I didn't say anything that personal that required a pm. At least I didn't think so.

Normally, when you have a question about why a moderator did something, you should ask in a PM instead of in the forum. This is in case they had reason to keep something out of the public eye.

If they're being unreasonable, PM an admin, and if that doesn't help, then make it a public issue. But, in general, you should start with a PM and go from there.

-----

No matter how you use the letters ID, or who spells it, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the intention is to prove Intellegent Design in the Universe

YOU ARE WRONG.

Really. I've said before that I'm not trying to use this as some sort of back door to trick people into believing in God. I'm not a liar; I'm not trying to deceive you. Why do you have such a hard time believing me here?

Look at a sampling of quotes from me:

"What I'm interested in is the general problem of recognizing intelligence, not the specific problem of recognizing design in biology."

"no, we're not trying to lull people in to a false sense of security so we can drop some bombshell about human origins. We're not trying to sucker anyone into accepting ID so that they'll accept the conclusions some people try to make about origins (mis)using ID. We just want to explore and develop ID as a general pursuit, and to correct people's misconceptions of what ID is."

"we're not talking about evolution or origins or selection or the stuff you THINK intelligent design means, we're talking about the abstract principles of detecting intelligence in general."

"So you think the abstract problem is interesting, but you don't think Drakona and I could honestly be interested in it? You think that's a neat problem, but think Drakona and I are only pretending to focus on that problem so we can somehow sneakily convert people even though we've said we won't?"(read the whole post.)

"Honestly, my main use for the ideas is in textual interpretation -- in trying to understand the ideas that led to a particular set of words being written, and in particular, trying to understand which parts of the text point to actual underlying ideas vs. which parts of the text are incidental."

"It would be pretty cool if we could use ID to detect a designer of the cosmos, and some people have tried. But that's not the problem we're talking about."

Now, when you respond to statements like that with statemens like these:

"The bottom line for me is that ID implies a designer, which implies a creator, which implies a god.... they have not one shred of evidence that there is a god, but are intent on convincing us there is"

"I see two religious people who are asking a clever question. However, the title of the thread, though presented as a game, is "Intelligent Design" and those two words, no matter how you play with them, have absolutely everything to do with the origins of life and the universe."

"ID is a trojan horse.....that implys a creator. Nothing more."

"it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the intention is to prove Intellegent Design in the Universe, which implies a creator, which implies a god."

... you're calling me a liar.

Do you realize that? I've said at least half a dozen times, in this thread alone, that I'm not talking about the design of the universe or the design of life. I've said half a dozen times that I'm not trying to sucker somebody into believing in God by getting them on the "ID bandwagon" and then changing the subject. But you respond by saying that ID is just a trojan horse or a cheap trick -- so you're calling me a liar.

You say you have respect for me, you admire me, whatever. So stop treating me like you think I'm lying to you or trying to trick you. (Unless, of course, you really think I'm lying to you -- in which case, there's not much point to continuing the discussion.)

It doesn't matter what the Kansas schoolboard, Pat Robertson, or you say ID is about. Drakona and I have stated in our own words what we mean by ID, and the problems we're interested in looking at within an ID framework, based on study of the actual key works in ID like "The Design Inference". Please stop pretending we're trying to get you to believe the stuff the Kansas schoolboard or Pat Robertson talk about through some tricky argument. We're not. We're trying to "explore and develop ID as a general pursuit, and to correct people's misconceptions of what ID is." Nothing more.

There is nothing to understand or learn about ID because there is no evidence or any predictive information to learn from.

Within the context of the origin of life and the origin of species, there's no predictive information. There's a little evidence, but certainly not enough to make the sort of arguments people try to make from it.

It is just two words that cannot support itself yet wants to be considered valid and be taught (forced) along with "accepted" science in schools.

I repeat: "As for the question of whether ID belongs in the science classroom: Not in the form I'm talking about (the abstract.) It's not developed well enough to be taught to anyone yet -- it's still a work in progress. I honestly don't know enough about the ID-origins position to be able to say whether or not there's enough valid information there for it to be brought into the public school curriculum, but I certainly won't be pushing for it."

I just oppose ID (not you) in any form...

Right... you dogmatically oppose ID. Because of the way some people have talked about ID as it relates to origins, you oppose anything labelled as ID, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with origins.

I guess I was no better when I was 16... if someone said the word "evolution" I wanted to oppose them, even if they were talking about the evolution of software or the evolution of the American legal system from ancient Greek ideals. Any mention of the word "evolution" made me think people were trying to trick me into believing in an atheistic worldview, so I dogmatically opposed it.

I'm asking you to learn from my mistake. Opposing all ideas that use a particular label because you have something against one of the ideas that uses the label is stupidly dogmatic. Break out of that pattern; be better than the fundamentalists you oppose instead of just being a fundamentalist for the other side. Instead of just rejecting the fundamentalist idea of a 6-day creation, reject the fundamentalist pattern of thought that says you have to reject whole categories of ideas just because one particular idea bugs you.

every person within that 15 is wrong, at least if they answered the question that was actually asked.... I bet that's the question you and the rest of the 15 imagined was being asked. All this really shows is that there are at least 15 of you whose preconceptions and biases on this subject are so strong that you read in pretexts or subtexts that aren't there.

I'm sorry your upset and to have offended you but don't be mad at the other 14 because of me.

I'm not offended or mad at anyone. I'm just very straightforward when I argue.

All 15 of you are wrong, because all 15 of you continue to treat it as though we're all talking about the form of ID the Kansas school board is talking about*. All 15 of you are stuck on the idea that when we say "ID" we mean "God created the universe", when we're really talking more about the general principle of detecting intelligence.

It's funny... if I came in here and talked about a Turing Test, nobody would bat an eye or complain about how I was trying to trick them into believing in God. But the Turing test is an attempt to define a method of detecting intelligence. It's easily within the boundaries of what I'm referring to as "ID". It just doesn't have the name "ID" attached to it, so it's somehow more acceptable to people. It's time to drop the knee-jerk opposition to the ID label. Every single person here is capable of better reasoning skills than that.


* I could be wrong here -- maybe there's someone who really thinks you can't reliably tell the difference between spam and real e-mail. But I doubt it...

[Bet51987]

I can't continue with this argument. I'm not good enough with words and my heart isn't in it. I just view Intelligent Design, Design Inference, other ID games and even Dembski himself, much differently than you, and I should have kept quiet.

I apologize for my remarks in the ID game thread. You were correct in separating the remarks from the game material and keeping those comments in this thread. I knew better but I did it anyway.

Lastly, I know personal damage has been done but I hope it isn't permanent...maybe we can settle this in the mines.

Bettina

[Lothar]

I know personal damage has been done

Not to me. I'm not upset, angry, hurt, or whatever it is you think I am... no personal damage has been done here. If it's been done to you, I apologize.

I'm not hurt... I just wish you'd take the time to listen to what's actually being said. I know how you view ID, TDI, the games, and Dembski, because of the experience you've had with those things. But please, remember your experience is not all there is. Just like my experience of "evolution" in high school wasn't all there is. Both of our experiences have been tainted by religious demagogues (*cough* Rican *cough*) who wanted to use the theories to convert people.

What the theory IS and what the religious demagogues USE IT FOR are two entirely different things. Let's separate the two.

[Drakona]

It's no wonder that everyone assumes the conversation is about origins. Historically, and even presently, that's what most of the Intelligent Design Movement has been about. It began as a collection of scientific objections to evolution, in Denton's book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis in the 1960's, continuing through Johnson's Darwin on Trial in 1991.

In the mid 90's, the movement took on a second theme--that of intelligent design. They began to express not only doubts about evolution, but also the positive claim that the things they were looking at evidenced intelligent design. Behe's Darwin's Black Box in 1995 contains both these themes, and Dembski's No Free Lunch from 1993 looks at the latter.

As a logical basis to this second claim, Dembski explored how to detect design in an abstract sense--that is, not how design can be detected in biology, but how it can be detected anywhere. This was the subject of his book, The Design Inference.

This third thing--the abstract question of design--is the part of the movement that actually interests me. The origins question is interesting, but I simply don't have the background to study it. But the abstract question of how to detect design is a mathematical, philosophical, philosophy-of-science-ish question that's right up my alley and which I have direct application for in hermeneutics (a field that's crying out for a unified philosophical/axiomatic framework, if you ask me, and that framework would be ID). It's also hard.

It's clear to me that design can sometimes be detected very reliably. Shoot, we do that any time we read. By reading the words I type, you infer my purpose--and you do so very accurately. You can pick meaningful text out of gibberish with total ease and reliability, and the conclusion that the text was intelligently generated is so forceful and reliable that no one even thinks to question it.

You can detect design in an engineering context, too. Anyone fixing a toaster or car or dishwasher can look at a piece of it and say, "Ah, I bet this piece was meant to do this, which means it goes here," and be right the vast majority of the time. You detect bugs in software that way. When you see a bug, what you're really saying is, "The designer didn't mean for it to do that." That's a design inference!

You can make design inferences in art criticism and in musical interpretation and... all over the place. And a lot of the time you're right.

What I want to know is, why does that work? Can you rigorize that? Can you fairly apply it elsewhere? That's why I set up that forum game: to probe everyone's intuition about where design can and can't fairly be detected, and how changing certain parameters changes those perceptions.

It's a slippery hard problem. The intuitive arguments are forceful, and from my mathematical background I've inherited both a trust and a distrust of intuition. Forceful intuitive arguments often tell you where to look to find interesting rigorous facts. They're also often wrong. Can you detect design rigorously in the mathematical sense? Dembski thinks you can, but I'm pretty sure you can't. Can you do it rigorously in the scientific sense? Maybe. I'm hopeful that you can within a particular sort of framework, and that an abstract evaluation of a given framework is something that can be developed. But you never know. Maybe it's all bunk and impossibility. I want to know either way.

I do think applying it to origins is over-hasty... but then, they always do try to develop the applications before the theory. If it serves to advance the state of the question, cool, fine by me. If it serves to hone everyone's understanding of origins through debate, that's a bonus. And if it serves to generate evidence for the existence of God, that's a big bonus--but I don't yet have the background (theoretically or emperically) to evaluate whether or not it does. (Though my uninformed personal opinion is that it does very strongly.)

---------

One thing that concerns me here is how eager people are to discard an argument based on the motives of the people arguing it. I can't tell you how many times I have heard, "Intelligent Design is false because it is a facade for forcing creationism into the schools." This is false, but even if it were true who cares? This is ad hominem. Even if every intelligent design proponent is a disgusting slimeball who steals candy from children, wants to burn all textbooks, and kicks puppies... that doesn't affect the truth or falsehood of the argument. It stands on its own merits.

I think a lot of ID critics would like to discard ID as "more of the same creationism we've been fighting for the last umpteen decades". The problem is that that isn't true. ID represents an attempt at a scientifically careful, religiously diverse challenge to evolution--it's a different critter entirely than creationism. Its methods are persuasion of scientific experts, not of Biblical literalists; its home is in academia, not in the church; its ultimate goal is scientific revolution and paradigm shift, not theological integration. I know a lot of people think these differences are just a front. They're wrong.

I'm not quite sure how to convince people of that, but I can say this. When I undertook a study of origins three years ago, I studied creationism of the ICR/young earth type for about three months before concluding that I didn't approve. I studied creationism of the Hugh Ross/old earth type for about three months as well, and approved of it more, but still didn't trust it. Then I took up ID... and three years later I'm still hip deep in it. I'm still skeptical about applying it to origins, but... the fact that I'm still here and interested three years later and these days thinking of trying to contribute... well, that should tell you at least that it isn't the same type of critter.

[Duper]

Drakona, though I hesitate to present this as I think it's silly; ID does, in fact, support the "Up-lift" crowd. That's the group that believes that we are the product of extraterristral genetic manipulation. As for along those lines, there is nothing to to suggest that carbon based / DNA based life is universal. There could indeed be other methods of cognisant, self-aware existance. Perhaps non-hard tissue based life. Who knows. And before you guys starts blasting me, this is very seriously considered among many scientist and uh... "Others". Carl Sagan was one if I'm not mistaken.

Babylon 5 illuded to this as well with biotech and the Vorlons. There is a lot of Sci-Fi that use this as a premis as well. This does not make it valid, but it shows that there are people who take this seriously.

Great Post Drakona, although if I'm not mistaken, you have posted this or something very simular a couple times before. :\

[Drakona]

Indeed. The hypothesis that aliens made us is a perfectly acceptable interpretation of a pro-ID conclusion about origins. In fact, it's more respectable than a lot of people realize. From Doubts About Darwin, the ID History book I'm reading at the moment:

By the late 1970s the discovery of a plausible chemical pathway to life seemed to some to be receding rather than coming closer. As early as 1973, just twenty years after his DNA milestone, Nobel laureate Sir Francis Crick had begun to toy with his own ideas of panspermia due to the difficult of envisaging the origin of life on earth. In his 1981 book, Life Itself, Crick reiterated his own idea of life being "seeded" here by aliens and explained why he entertained this scenario: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.

That's one thing that I find amusing about the origins puzzle. People who really study it end up believing in God, or aliens, or inifinite numbers of parallel universes, or other such things. I know which of those I think is more rational, but I still find it amusing to see what the paradoxes drive other people to. The world really isn't an easy place to explain.

I hadn't heard that Sagan was of the panspermia crowd. He has such a strong reputation for talking about "millions and billions" of things, that his name has been made into a unit. I always figured he would be in the sagans-of-parallel-universes crowd.

[Duper]

LOL.. what a way to make a "name" for yourself! I think you're right though, I'm not a big Sagan fan so I'm not truely familiar with which Science camp favored him ...or which he favored.

I know which of those I think is more rational, but I still find it amusing to see what the paradoxes drive other people to.

I also have to agree with you here as I have lost count over the years of reading accounts of scientists and Atheiest who set out to dis-prove God using science and windup face to face with him and accepting him.... to quote someone.. "tis the nature of things." or rather man.

[Behemoth]

He based his conclusions on Newton's law of gravitational attraction and Kepler's three laws of planetary motion, and the heliocentric model of the solar system had been proposed long before even Copernicus.

Are you refering to einstein TG?

[Top Gun]

He based his conclusions on Newton's law of gravitational attraction and Kepler's three laws of planetary motion, and the heliocentric model of the solar system had been proposed long before even Copernicus.

Are you refering to einstein TG?

Jeez; you made me backtrack to see what I had written. No, I was referring to Galileo in that sentence. It followed from the "he" of the previous sentence.

[Behemoth]

He based his conclusions on Newton's law of gravitational attraction and Kepler's three laws of planetary motion, and the heliocentric model of the solar system had been proposed long before even Copernicus.

Are you refering to einstein TG?

Jeez; you made me backtrack to see what I had written. No, I was referring to Galileo in that sentence. It followed from the "he" of the previous sentence.

Galileo couldnt have based his coclusions on newtons law because newton was born the same year galileo died, 1642.
Also from what ive read, kepler was more of a peer to galileo under the copernican law system rather then a mentor.

[Kilarin]

I can't tell you how many times I have heard, "Intelligent Design is false because it is a facade for forcing creationism into the schools." This is false, but even if it were true who cares?

AMEN!

I keep hearing folks screaming about the "wedge" theory. That ID is just being used as a wedge to slip creationisim back into schools. Well, yes, obviously so. Look back at the scopes trial. Back then everyone was afraid that letting Evolution into the science class was wedge to slip Naturalisim into our public schools. Well, yes it was. Neither "wedge" has ANYTHING to do with the truth or falsity of either theory.

Of course, from my libertarian perspective, I'm uncomfortable with public schools anyway. In a perfect world every parent would pick a private school for their child, based not only on academics, but on that schools philosphy. And this whole thing wouldn't be an issue at all. Some schools would teach from a Naturalist perspective, some from each religious perspective, and many would mix both.
But, alas, it ain't a perfect world, not by a long shot, and eliminating the public schools will create at LEAST as many problems as it solves.

So, we are stuck with them. And that means that legitimate scientific issues get swallowed up in the debate about whether MY tax dollars should be paying to teach theory X to some public school child who is required by law to attend and be indoctrinated. <sigh>

Kilarin

[Top Gun]

He based his conclusions on Newton's law of gravitational attraction and Kepler's three laws of planetary motion, and the heliocentric model of the solar system had been proposed long before even Copernicus.

Are you refering to einstein TG?

Jeez; you made me backtrack to see what I had written. No, I was referring to Galileo in that sentence. It followed from the "he" of the previous sentence.

Galileo couldnt have based his coclusions on newtons law because newton was born the same year galileo died, 1642.
Also from what ive read, kepler was more of a peer to galileo under the copernican law system rather then a mentor.

And that's why I should never be entrusted with historical facts. I believe I was going for the other way around; i.e. Newton gaining inspiration from the work of Galileo and Kepler. At any rate, I'm hoping that the original point I was trying to make about scientific progress managed to make it through all of the muddle.

[Drakona]

In another off-topic ID-related comment...

I can't resist linking to this recent ID discussion on Scott Adams' blog. He's clearly a newcomer to the debate, but a perceptive guy. And funny. But you already knew that.

(You can scan forward to later posts, including an awesome "How to make people sound stuipid" guide the discussion spawns.)