I did not said that you where stupid, just that you are belonging to the human race like me, and thus when you have tricks, you use it. You are not going to re-invent your style of programming for each new softwares.
Our brain works mostly by analogy, and we do not create original answers each time we encounter a new problem : most of the time we adapt our current knowlegde to the problem.
In an other way, genius are able to find original answer to new problems. Here is a small story wich will illustrate what I am trying badly to explain :
- a math teacher ask a boy in his class to tell him the two answer of the problem (the boy was a genius in math, and finish 5 th in the international math contest). The boy replied there was the answer A and B, then he add, there is also answer C, an original answer that the math teacher ignored.
I did not said that you where stupid, just that you are belonging to the human race like me, and thus when you have tricks, you use it. You are not going to re-invent your style of programming for each new softwares.
Our brain works mostly by analogy, and we do not create original answers each time we encounter a new problem : most of the time we adapt our current knowlegde to the problem.
In an other way, genius are able to find original answer to new problems. Here is a small story wich will illustrate what I am trying badly to explain :
- a math teacher ask a boy in his class to tell him the two answer of the problem (the boy was a genius in math, and finish 5 th in the international math contest). The boy replied there was the answer A and B, then he add, there is also answer C, an original answer that the math teacher ignored.
You are using a single axis (originality) of analysis for "genius". This is clearly wrong. Geniuses build on their previous work as well as introducing original ideas along the way. In this way everything I have written is not identical...and the similarities might only be obvious on closer observation.
Finally, in regard to our natural world...there are significant example of both similarity (re-using some concept/style/idiom/mechanism) and originality.
Along these lines...some suggested that human beings and the monkeys are about 99% genetically identical. But what a world of different that 1% makes. Now that's what I would call genius!
P.S. I did not assume you were suggesting that I am stupid...so this isn't something personal.
That is a POSSIBLE explanation...but aren't there others?
As BRussell said, science is always open to other theories and hypotheses. What other hypotheses do you have and what evidence is there for it?
Quote:
(Besides I was asking for observations of it actually happening. Observations of the genetic similarities are not a dead-lock for an evolutionary answer.
The DNA evidence is a deadlock. The genetic similarities are consistent backwards through time with all of the flora and fuana out there. DNA is the primary tool of biological evolutionists, used to confirm or correct the biological tree. There are holes, but every science has holes at the edges.
Quote:
But observations of one thing spotaneously changing into some other thing...even over time...might be. But I see precious few...if any...of these. I see lots of examples of human directed changes...I see observations that assume a spontaneous alteration occurred.)
At the scales we are talking about, nothing occurs spontaneously, nor does any evolutionist really say spontaneously. Speciation takes many many generations in the correct environments to occur and thus far, the only direct observations are in microbial life and lower life forms such as plants, fishes and insects.
By definition, dogs, cats, cows, horses, corn, rice, wheat, ie, all domesticated animals and plants, are the result co-evolution with humans, but you won't accept that. If you want direct observations of speciation of something like a cat, cow or bird, you'll have to live a few more centuries.
Btw, a snake doesn't become a dog, nor does a fish become a bird. A snake can perhaps become a dog-like form, but it is still a snake. A fish can turn into a powered flying fish, but it is still a fish. Whales live entirely in the water and bats fly like a bird, but they are still mammals. The DNA will bare that out.
Quote:
Couldn't those observations also be consistent with a single, intelligent designer having created all of those things?
For example...I write software...Over the course of my career...if you were to look at all of the code I have written...you would likely find a LOT of similarity...many of the same idioms, techniques, styles, etc. used throughout ALL of my work.
If there is an intelligent designer, wouldn't it leave behind artifacts? How about a pipet, a flask, a table, anything that is manufactured, buried in thousands of years old rock? What sort of tools did the designer use? Did it have a laboratory?
If the intelligent designer is the Christian god, and the Bible is truly inspired and inerrant, shouldn't there be some evidence of the more supernatural things in it. There are 900+ year old people in it. Why don't we find any bones that old anywhere. Why isn't there one consistent world wide layer of sediment, silt, bones representing the flood.
At least for your software, we could find your computer, your computer books, your computer disks, etc. Based on that, we'd even postulate that you wrote your software using a high-level language and relied on a compiler instead of writing the 1s and 0s directly.
P.S. I did not assume you were suggesting that I am stupid...so this isn't something personal.
And you where right.
I was just saying, that unlike the gods of the Greeks, the monotheist god, is unlimited.
That's mean, that is level of intelligence according to these religions are far above us. If the maximum human IQ is let's say 220 (there is differents scales) god intelligence should be only infinite.
So if I assume that a genius has more original input than a clever guy, god should be able to create original input everywhere.
Now he could also choose to not create original input everywhere.
So the argument of similarity could be read both ways. You canno't dismiss or prove god or the reverse by this argument.
I have only one big problem with the intelligent design theory :
Assuming that there isn't anywhere proof for or agaisnt the existence of god in the real world (I do not speak of the mystical experiences here), why the Intelligent design should be the exception ?
Why should I or any other scientist not care about everything that politics affects? We are citizens, no? And the descisions of the government affect our ability to do our work.
We speak with the lay people all the time -- do you read the new york times science/technology sections? The problem is that because of politics the educational level/understanding level of the lay person is often not sufficient for us to get everything across. All of our journals are public, you can read them -- we hide nothing that we don't hide from other scientists.
These are arguments that the church has used also. Either to meddle in politics or to keep the populace in ignorance.
They refused to communicate completely in the vernacular. Even the literate of the populace often could not read the Bible for themselves, b/c they were not trained in Latin. Then the church lost a lot of support through their political meddling and refusal to listen to their followers. Luckly, or unluckly the church went through some major changes in the ensuing centuries and most of them learned a valuable lesson. Communicate. However, there is a strong vocal minority of Christians that insist on meddling in politics.
As to your argument for scientists involving themselves in politics? If you are not careful, there will be a public and media backlash and you could find your funding cut due to changing political winds among the populace. We do still live in a Democratic Republic, and scientists still seem to be an "animal" different to the lay public. So be careful witch doctors of reason, cuz unfortunately for us all, most of humanity seems to be unreasonable.
As for your journals, they say the same thing as a lawyer says when he uses his professional language, aka jargon. It is not the language of the populace.
And you can not expect the populace to change for you. Remember you, scientists and priests, are supposed to be leaders. You have to lead them to and through change.
So the argument of similarity could be read both ways. You canno't dismiss or prove god or the reverse by this argument.
Which is exactly my point. The existence of similarity does not prove the existence of God (or some other intelligent designer)...but it also doesn't disprove it either...which is the leap many folks make.
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Assuming that there isn't anywhere proof for or agaisnt the existence of god in the real world (I do not speak of the mystical experiences here), why the Intelligent design should be the exception ?
It could be that the appearance of evolution looks a LOT like the appearance of design. Ever think about it that way?
I'm not sure that I understand that. Do you mean that the outcomes of evolution make it look like an intelligent design? Yeah, if that's what you mean, I think that's absolutely true.
I'm not sure that I understand that. Do you mean that the outcomes of evolution make it look like an intelligent design? Yeah, if that's what you mean, I think that's absolutely true.
No...what I mean is that the facts/observations we see could look like evolution...but they could also look like design.
See all we have are facts and observations. We can interpret these in a variety of way to explain the facts and observations. Evolutionary theories are one way to explain the facts and observations. Intelligent design is another way. Perhaps there are other too, though I expect that are probably all variations on these two basica explanations.
In other words the facts do not necessarily "say" evolution...but they might be explained by evolution. This is the jump that most people make. They might also be explained another way.
One illustration of this might something like the Kennedy Assassination. There are a wide variety of a facts and observations. There are also many different theories that explain all of these facts. Some explanations make more sense, others not so much. Couple this with the fact that we don't have ALL of the facts (we do not have complete and absolute knowledge)...all of our explanations have a degree of faith attached to them. Now in this example...surely someone knows...but either they are dead or not speaking or something. But we (as observers) can only attempt to formulate explanations.
Evolutionary theories are an attempt to explain facts and observations. So is intelligent design. The question I raised is whether or not the facts and observations could be reasonably explaine by either theory...not just one.
Well according to most religious people and theologians, god choose to not display absolute proof of his existence.
If we follow this line of logic, the intelligent design will be an exception to this golden rule : nothing related to god, can be proved or disproved.
Well I cannot speak for "most religious people and theologians" but I can talk about what the Bible says on this subject...and the Bible does say, in Romans 1:20...
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities?his eternal power and divine nature?have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made"
This is widely accepted (in Christian circles) to be a way that God has effectively said..."look my existence is evident through my creation".
So, as far as Christians go, I think it would be wrong to say that God has essentially made Himself invisible or non-obvious. This, of course, doesn't even touch on the existence of Jesus and that entails...revelation-wise.
was just saying, that unlike the gods of the Greeks, the monotheist god, is unlimited.
That's mean, that is level of intelligence according to these religions are far above us. If the maximum human IQ is let's say 220 (there is differents scales) god intelligence should be only infinite.
So if I assume that a genius has more original input than a clever guy, god should be able to create original input everywhere.
Now he could also choose to not create original input everywhere.
True.
However, the creations of a divine intelligence must operate within set perameters. Hypothetically, if we were to take this and the existence of God as a given then the processes of the universe have a set number of outcomes that are predictible to him (her, it). So, with the parameters set and the input of materials through what we call natural processes it can be predicted that humans would rise through these processes (physics, chemistry, biology). If our world weren't given parameters, then all would be chance, or chaos and unobservable by science.
My argument which I believe is supported by your's: God needs no parameters to exist, however he must give us parameters so that the outcomes of the process is his desired outcome. Sure, he could've just made whatever his desire was come to immediate fruition. However, I believe it is the process and growth that was really important.
Alright. I'll explain it in terms everyone can understand, even me.
Evolutionists and Creationists are talking about 2 different fingers stuck in the same butthole. Then they argue that the butthole that the other finger is stuck in doesn't exist and that the other finger is broken. They don't want to see that the butthole is the same one or anyone else to see that. Hell, if you want you shove a whole fist in that butthole and still have room for my boot.
No...what I mean is that the facts/observations we see could look like evolution...but they could also look like design.
See all we have are facts and observations. We can interpret these in a variety of way to explain the facts and observations. Evolutionary theories are one way to explain the facts and observations. Intelligent design is another way. Perhaps there are other too, though I expect that are probably all variations on these two basica explanations.
In other words the facts do not necessarily "say" evolution...but they might be explained by evolution. This is the jump that most people make. They might also be explained another way.
One illustration of this might something like the Kennedy Assassination. There are a wide variety of a facts and observations. There are also many different theories that explain all of these facts. Some explanations make more sense, others not so much. Couple this with the fact that we don't have ALL of the facts (we do not have complete and absolute knowledge)...all of our explanations have a degree of faith attached to them. Now in this example...surely someone knows...but either they are dead or not speaking or something. But we (as observers) can only attempt to formulate explanations.
Evolutionary theories are an attempt to explain facts and observations. So is intelligent design. The question I raised is whether or not the facts and observations could be reasonably explaine by either theory...not just one.
I agree with the principle that different theories can explain the same set of facts. It's really the definition of a theory.
But my impression is that creationism is not really a scientific theory, it's more of a statement that "God did it," accompanied by a description of (alleged) flaws or gaps in our understanding of biological evolution. I don't know of any predictions of creationism that could be confirmed or disconfirmed through observation, for example.
I was just saying, that unlike the gods of the Greeks, the monotheist god, is unlimited.
I read (forget where) a theory that monotheism is better for science, because with polytheism, a God is in charge of every phenomenon, and so explanations are ready-made. With monotheism, God is more distant, and so monotheistic cultures are more likely to look for explanations. Not sure if it's accurate, but I thought it was interesting.
it is clearly my citizen-self responsibility to seek a populace that understands every word i speak. i use a spoken vocabulary that most well read intellects often do not understand (and it isn't because the words are science words, they aren't, it is because when i use a word i want its full meaning to be in use). it is my scientist-self that doesn't care if Mr. Smith of 1413 Worthington Street understands the meaning of oxidoreductase because he has access to a dictionary.
I agree with the principle that different theories can explain the same set of facts. It's really the definition of a theory.
Exactly.
Quote:
But my impression is that creationism is not really a scientific theory,
Didn't claim it was. However, one shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because something is not "scientific" (in the sense that at can be proven by direct observation or experiment), doesn't mean it isn't true or real. It only means that the scientific method is insufficient to prove the theory/explanation/etc.
Quote:
accompanied by a description of (alleged) flaws or gaps in our understanding of biological evolution.
Well some of those things aren't so alleged.
Quote:
I don't know of any predictions of creationism that could be confirmed or disconfirmed through observation, for example.
The very same thing could be said about the evolutionary (or "big bang") theories of origin of the universe. No one can prove what did happen (past tense)...we can observe what is happening (present tense) and use this to theorize what did (past) and predict what will (future) happen. That's about it.
It is the leap (of faith?) to "fact" that evolution is what happened (no questions allowed) that frustrates me...and should frustrate anyone that wish to remain objective, open-minded and, dare I say, scientific about the whole thing.
Furthermore, it is sadly limiting to us when we expect that all that exists is only what we can see, hear, touch and smell. It is almost comically limiting to be honest.
Didn't claim it was. However, one shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because something is not "scientific" (in the sense that at can be proven by direct observation or experiment), doesn't mean it isn't true or real. It only means that the scientific method is insufficient to prove the theory/explanation/etc.
What sorts of things is the scientific method insufficient for understanding? I certainly agree that there are some things, but I don't think this question (of the mechanism of the diversity of life) is one of them.
Quote:
The very same thing could be said about the evolutionary (or "big bang") theories of origin of the universe. No one can prove what did happen (past tense)...we can observe what is happening (present tense) and use this to theorize what did (past) and predict what will (future) happen. That's about it.
I'm no expert on this by any means, but I think there are predictions that evolutionary theory has made that could have been disconfirmed. For example, I don't think Darwin knew about DNA, and yet the way it works is consistent with evolutionary theory. There have been tons of observations of life and fossils and geology that hadn't been made before Darwin. Those observations could have been consistent or inconsistent with evolution. They were consistent.
Quote:
Furthermore, it is sadly limiting to us when we expect that all that exists is only what we can see, hear, touch and smell. It is almost comically limiting to be honest.
I agree. But I think spirituality has to exist in a place that observation (science) cannot touch. Otherwise, you put it on an unfair playing field on which it cannot compete, and it will lose.
I agree. But I think spirituality has to exist in a place that observation (science) cannot touch. Otherwise, you put it on an unfair playing field on which it cannot compete, and it will lose.
I am not talking (only) about spirituality. Keep in mind there was a time when scientists never even conceived of things that could not be seen, heard, touched or otherwise sensed (atomic particles? bacteria? viruses?)
Our perspective is limited. Those that espouse the scientific worldview tend to have an arrogance of their own that assumes their view is the only one.
I have tried to suggest that someone can accept, believe, trust the things that scientific community offers...and also have a spiritual belief that dovetails.
In other words...it can be both and rather than either or.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
I say that because the world sure appears as if biological evolution occurred.
It could be that the appearance of evolution looks a LOT like the appearance of design. Ever think about it that way?
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Never written much code I guess?
I did wrote code (a long time ago, I must admit)
I did not said that you where stupid, just that you are belonging to the human race like me, and thus when you have tricks, you use it. You are not going to re-invent your style of programming for each new softwares.
Our brain works mostly by analogy, and we do not create original answers each time we encounter a new problem : most of the time we adapt our current knowlegde to the problem.
In an other way, genius are able to find original answer to new problems. Here is a small story wich will illustrate what I am trying badly to explain :
- a math teacher ask a boy in his class to tell him the two answer of the problem (the boy was a genius in math, and finish 5 th in the international math contest). The boy replied there was the answer A and B, then he add, there is also answer C, an original answer that the math teacher ignored.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I did wrote code (a long time ago, I must admit)
I did not said that you where stupid, just that you are belonging to the human race like me, and thus when you have tricks, you use it. You are not going to re-invent your style of programming for each new softwares.
Our brain works mostly by analogy, and we do not create original answers each time we encounter a new problem : most of the time we adapt our current knowlegde to the problem.
In an other way, genius are able to find original answer to new problems. Here is a small story wich will illustrate what I am trying badly to explain :
- a math teacher ask a boy in his class to tell him the two answer of the problem (the boy was a genius in math, and finish 5 th in the international math contest). The boy replied there was the answer A and B, then he add, there is also answer C, an original answer that the math teacher ignored.
You are using a single axis (originality) of analysis for "genius". This is clearly wrong. Geniuses build on their previous work as well as introducing original ideas along the way. In this way everything I have written is not identical...and the similarities might only be obvious on closer observation.
Finally, in regard to our natural world...there are significant example of both similarity (re-using some concept/style/idiom/mechanism) and originality.
Along these lines...some suggested that human beings and the monkeys are about 99% genetically identical. But what a world of different that 1% makes. Now that's what I would call genius!
P.S. I did not assume you were suggesting that I am stupid...so this isn't something personal.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
That is a POSSIBLE explanation...but aren't there others?
As BRussell said, science is always open to other theories and hypotheses. What other hypotheses do you have and what evidence is there for it?
(Besides I was asking for observations of it actually happening. Observations of the genetic similarities are not a dead-lock for an evolutionary answer.
The DNA evidence is a deadlock. The genetic similarities are consistent backwards through time with all of the flora and fuana out there. DNA is the primary tool of biological evolutionists, used to confirm or correct the biological tree. There are holes, but every science has holes at the edges.
But observations of one thing spotaneously changing into some other thing...even over time...might be. But I see precious few...if any...of these. I see lots of examples of human directed changes...I see observations that assume a spontaneous alteration occurred.)
At the scales we are talking about, nothing occurs spontaneously, nor does any evolutionist really say spontaneously. Speciation takes many many generations in the correct environments to occur and thus far, the only direct observations are in microbial life and lower life forms such as plants, fishes and insects.
By definition, dogs, cats, cows, horses, corn, rice, wheat, ie, all domesticated animals and plants, are the result co-evolution with humans, but you won't accept that. If you want direct observations of speciation of something like a cat, cow or bird, you'll have to live a few more centuries.
Btw, a snake doesn't become a dog, nor does a fish become a bird. A snake can perhaps become a dog-like form, but it is still a snake. A fish can turn into a powered flying fish, but it is still a fish. Whales live entirely in the water and bats fly like a bird, but they are still mammals. The DNA will bare that out.
Couldn't those observations also be consistent with a single, intelligent designer having created all of those things?
For example...I write software...Over the course of my career...if you were to look at all of the code I have written...you would likely find a LOT of similarity...many of the same idioms, techniques, styles, etc. used throughout ALL of my work.
If there is an intelligent designer, wouldn't it leave behind artifacts? How about a pipet, a flask, a table, anything that is manufactured, buried in thousands of years old rock? What sort of tools did the designer use? Did it have a laboratory?
If the intelligent designer is the Christian god, and the Bible is truly inspired and inerrant, shouldn't there be some evidence of the more supernatural things in it. There are 900+ year old people in it. Why don't we find any bones that old anywhere. Why isn't there one consistent world wide layer of sediment, silt, bones representing the flood.
At least for your software, we could find your computer, your computer books, your computer disks, etc. Based on that, we'd even postulate that you wrote your software using a high-level language and relied on a compiler instead of writing the 1s and 0s directly.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
P.S. I did not assume you were suggesting that I am stupid...so this isn't something personal.
And you where right.
I was just saying, that unlike the gods of the Greeks, the monotheist god, is unlimited.
That's mean, that is level of intelligence according to these religions are far above us. If the maximum human IQ is let's say 220 (there is differents scales) god intelligence should be only infinite.
So if I assume that a genius has more original input than a clever guy, god should be able to create original input everywhere.
Now he could also choose to not create original input everywhere.
So the argument of similarity could be read both ways. You canno't dismiss or prove god or the reverse by this argument.
I have only one big problem with the intelligent design theory :
Assuming that there isn't anywhere proof for or agaisnt the existence of god in the real world (I do not speak of the mystical experiences here), why the Intelligent design should be the exception ?
Why should I or any other scientist not care about everything that politics affects? We are citizens, no? And the descisions of the government affect our ability to do our work.
We speak with the lay people all the time -- do you read the new york times science/technology sections? The problem is that because of politics the educational level/understanding level of the lay person is often not sufficient for us to get everything across. All of our journals are public, you can read them -- we hide nothing that we don't hide from other scientists.
These are arguments that the church has used also. Either to meddle in politics or to keep the populace in ignorance.
They refused to communicate completely in the vernacular. Even the literate of the populace often could not read the Bible for themselves, b/c they were not trained in Latin. Then the church lost a lot of support through their political meddling and refusal to listen to their followers. Luckly, or unluckly the church went through some major changes in the ensuing centuries and most of them learned a valuable lesson. Communicate. However, there is a strong vocal minority of Christians that insist on meddling in politics.
As to your argument for scientists involving themselves in politics? If you are not careful, there will be a public and media backlash and you could find your funding cut due to changing political winds among the populace. We do still live in a Democratic Republic, and scientists still seem to be an "animal" different to the lay public. So be careful witch doctors of reason, cuz unfortunately for us all, most of humanity seems to be unreasonable.
As for your journals, they say the same thing as a lawyer says when he uses his professional language, aka jargon. It is not the language of the populace.
And you can not expect the populace to change for you. Remember you, scientists and priests, are supposed to be leaders. You have to lead them to and through change.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
So the argument of similarity could be read both ways. You canno't dismiss or prove god or the reverse by this argument.
Which is exactly my point. The existence of similarity does not prove the existence of God (or some other intelligent designer)...but it also doesn't disprove it either...which is the leap many folks make.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Assuming that there isn't anywhere proof for or agaisnt the existence of god in the real world (I do not speak of the mystical experiences here), why the Intelligent design should be the exception ?
Not sure that I understand your question.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
It could be that the appearance of evolution looks a LOT like the appearance of design. Ever think about it that way?
I'm not sure that I understand that. Do you mean that the outcomes of evolution make it look like an intelligent design? Yeah, if that's what you mean, I think that's absolutely true.
Originally posted by BRussell
I'm not sure that I understand that. Do you mean that the outcomes of evolution make it look like an intelligent design? Yeah, if that's what you mean, I think that's absolutely true.
No...what I mean is that the facts/observations we see could look like evolution...but they could also look like design.
See all we have are facts and observations. We can interpret these in a variety of way to explain the facts and observations. Evolutionary theories are one way to explain the facts and observations. Intelligent design is another way. Perhaps there are other too, though I expect that are probably all variations on these two basica explanations.
In other words the facts do not necessarily "say" evolution...but they might be explained by evolution. This is the jump that most people make. They might also be explained another way.
One illustration of this might something like the Kennedy Assassination. There are a wide variety of a facts and observations. There are also many different theories that explain all of these facts. Some explanations make more sense, others not so much. Couple this with the fact that we don't have ALL of the facts (we do not have complete and absolute knowledge)...all of our explanations have a degree of faith attached to them. Now in this example...surely someone knows...but either they are dead or not speaking or something. But we (as observers) can only attempt to formulate explanations.
Evolutionary theories are an attempt to explain facts and observations. So is intelligent design. The question I raised is whether or not the facts and observations could be reasonably explaine by either theory...not just one.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Not sure that I understand your question.
Well according to most religious people and theologians, god choose to not display absolute proof of his existence.
If we follow this line of logic, the intelligent design will be an exception to this golden rule : nothing related to god, can be proved or disproved.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Well according to most religious people and theologians, god choose to not display absolute proof of his existence.
If we follow this line of logic, the intelligent design will be an exception to this golden rule : nothing related to god, can be proved or disproved.
Well I cannot speak for "most religious people and theologians" but I can talk about what the Bible says on this subject...and the Bible does say, in Romans 1:20...
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities?his eternal power and divine nature?have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made"
This is widely accepted (in Christian circles) to be a way that God has effectively said..."look my existence is evident through my creation".
So, as far as Christians go, I think it would be wrong to say that God has essentially made Himself invisible or non-obvious. This, of course, doesn't even touch on the existence of Jesus and that entails...revelation-wise.
was just saying, that unlike the gods of the Greeks, the monotheist god, is unlimited.
That's mean, that is level of intelligence according to these religions are far above us. If the maximum human IQ is let's say 220 (there is differents scales) god intelligence should be only infinite.
So if I assume that a genius has more original input than a clever guy, god should be able to create original input everywhere.
Now he could also choose to not create original input everywhere.
True.
However, the creations of a divine intelligence must operate within set perameters. Hypothetically, if we were to take this and the existence of God as a given then the processes of the universe have a set number of outcomes that are predictible to him (her, it). So, with the parameters set and the input of materials through what we call natural processes it can be predicted that humans would rise through these processes (physics, chemistry, biology). If our world weren't given parameters, then all would be chance, or chaos and unobservable by science.
My argument which I believe is supported by your's: God needs no parameters to exist, however he must give us parameters so that the outcomes of the process is his desired outcome. Sure, he could've just made whatever his desire was come to immediate fruition. However, I believe it is the process and growth that was really important.
Evolutionists and Creationists are talking about 2 different fingers stuck in the same butthole. Then they argue that the butthole that the other finger is stuck in doesn't exist and that the other finger is broken. They don't want to see that the butthole is the same one or anyone else to see that. Hell, if you want you shove a whole fist in that butthole and still have room for my boot.
We all got that now, right?
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
No...what I mean is that the facts/observations we see could look like evolution...but they could also look like design.
See all we have are facts and observations. We can interpret these in a variety of way to explain the facts and observations. Evolutionary theories are one way to explain the facts and observations. Intelligent design is another way. Perhaps there are other too, though I expect that are probably all variations on these two basica explanations.
In other words the facts do not necessarily "say" evolution...but they might be explained by evolution. This is the jump that most people make. They might also be explained another way.
One illustration of this might something like the Kennedy Assassination. There are a wide variety of a facts and observations. There are also many different theories that explain all of these facts. Some explanations make more sense, others not so much. Couple this with the fact that we don't have ALL of the facts (we do not have complete and absolute knowledge)...all of our explanations have a degree of faith attached to them. Now in this example...surely someone knows...but either they are dead or not speaking or something. But we (as observers) can only attempt to formulate explanations.
Evolutionary theories are an attempt to explain facts and observations. So is intelligent design. The question I raised is whether or not the facts and observations could be reasonably explaine by either theory...not just one.
I agree with the principle that different theories can explain the same set of facts. It's really the definition of a theory.
But my impression is that creationism is not really a scientific theory, it's more of a statement that "God did it," accompanied by a description of (alleged) flaws or gaps in our understanding of biological evolution. I don't know of any predictions of creationism that could be confirmed or disconfirmed through observation, for example.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I was just saying, that unlike the gods of the Greeks, the monotheist god, is unlimited.
I read (forget where) a theory that monotheism is better for science, because with polytheism, a God is in charge of every phenomenon, and so explanations are ready-made. With monotheism, God is more distant, and so monotheistic cultures are more likely to look for explanations. Not sure if it's accurate, but I thought it was interesting.
it is clearly my citizen-self responsibility to seek a populace that understands every word i speak. i use a spoken vocabulary that most well read intellects often do not understand (and it isn't because the words are science words, they aren't, it is because when i use a word i want its full meaning to be in use). it is my scientist-self that doesn't care if Mr. Smith of 1413 Worthington Street understands the meaning of oxidoreductase because he has access to a dictionary.
get it?
you can have the smilies
Originally posted by BRussell
I agree with the principle that different theories can explain the same set of facts. It's really the definition of a theory.
Exactly.
But my impression is that creationism is not really a scientific theory,
Didn't claim it was. However, one shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because something is not "scientific" (in the sense that at can be proven by direct observation or experiment), doesn't mean it isn't true or real. It only means that the scientific method is insufficient to prove the theory/explanation/etc.
accompanied by a description of (alleged) flaws or gaps in our understanding of biological evolution.
Well some of those things aren't so alleged.
I don't know of any predictions of creationism that could be confirmed or disconfirmed through observation, for example.
The very same thing could be said about the evolutionary (or "big bang") theories of origin of the universe. No one can prove what did happen (past tense)...we can observe what is happening (present tense) and use this to theorize what did (past) and predict what will (future) happen. That's about it.
It is the leap (of faith?) to "fact" that evolution is what happened (no questions allowed) that frustrates me...and should frustrate anyone that wish to remain objective, open-minded and, dare I say, scientific about the whole thing.
Furthermore, it is sadly limiting to us when we expect that all that exists is only what we can see, hear, touch and smell. It is almost comically limiting to be honest.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Didn't claim it was. However, one shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because something is not "scientific" (in the sense that at can be proven by direct observation or experiment), doesn't mean it isn't true or real. It only means that the scientific method is insufficient to prove the theory/explanation/etc.
What sorts of things is the scientific method insufficient for understanding? I certainly agree that there are some things, but I don't think this question (of the mechanism of the diversity of life) is one of them.
The very same thing could be said about the evolutionary (or "big bang") theories of origin of the universe. No one can prove what did happen (past tense)...we can observe what is happening (present tense) and use this to theorize what did (past) and predict what will (future) happen. That's about it.
I'm no expert on this by any means, but I think there are predictions that evolutionary theory has made that could have been disconfirmed. For example, I don't think Darwin knew about DNA, and yet the way it works is consistent with evolutionary theory. There have been tons of observations of life and fossils and geology that hadn't been made before Darwin. Those observations could have been consistent or inconsistent with evolution. They were consistent.
Furthermore, it is sadly limiting to us when we expect that all that exists is only what we can see, hear, touch and smell. It is almost comically limiting to be honest.
I agree. But I think spirituality has to exist in a place that observation (science) cannot touch. Otherwise, you put it on an unfair playing field on which it cannot compete, and it will lose.
Originally posted by BRussell
I agree. But I think spirituality has to exist in a place that observation (science) cannot touch. Otherwise, you put it on an unfair playing field on which it cannot compete, and it will lose.
I am not talking (only) about spirituality. Keep in mind there was a time when scientists never even conceived of things that could not be seen, heard, touched or otherwise sensed (atomic particles? bacteria? viruses?)
Our perspective is limited. Those that espouse the scientific worldview tend to have an arrogance of their own that assumes their view is the only one.
I have tried to suggest that someone can accept, believe, trust the things that scientific community offers...and also have a spiritual belief that dovetails.
In other words...it can be both and rather than either or.