Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Perhaps it is because the further science digs into the origins of matter, the more intelligent design seems the inevitable conclusion, thus it is
once again being taught. Not as a matter of religion, but of good science. Do some research, and you will find that among the leaders in quantum
physics and fields related to origins of matter and the universe, their opinions are largely split as to how it all began. Eventually, this has to
begin filtering down. Biologists still fervently believe in evolution, but those looking deeper are beginning to have their doubts. Maybe there is
some hope for intelligence after all.
Before I address any other points, allow me to please wipe quantum theory from this thread as it is entirely irrelevant and also because the term
"intelligent design" is being thrown around on this thread like confetti by people who have obviously no clue what it actually means.
SS, by "leaders in quantum physics", who exactly do you mean? Feynman? Stephen Hawking? Charles Schrodinger? David Bohm? Niels Bohr? Norwood Hanson?
Edwin Burtt? Walter Stace? Edgar Cayce? Karl Popper? Thomas Kunn? Any of the bazillions of quantum physicists who agree on absolutely nothing but seem
to make perfect sense regardless?
Let me equate quantum theories to eastern philosophy for a moment. "Leading quantum theories" (if any could be described as "leading") which point
to intelligent design are contrived of other "leading quantum theories" such as superposition, reductionism, and "inductive logic as the only kind
of logic". They point to theories such as non-linear time and zero point space. Just unprovable theories built on unprovable theories.
Now, if you were to refer to a quantum theorist or physicist as believing in intelligent design, you'll probably find that they describe the universe
as self-creating and constantly recreating and both and neither all at the same time. In a sense, they are saying the most logically true thing they
can think of: that the universe is the universe. (Sort of like how God said "I am that I am" or something to that effect) Existence was created by
existence was created by creation was created by creation. Doesn't make any sense to me either.
The point is that intelligent design points to a non-Judeo-Christian God, a god which is truley not human, a god which can't be described or related
to, a god which IS everything and ISN'T anything... basically something which can not be understood or labeled and should simply be left alone.
Quantum theory is basically the western version of Eastern Philosophy which is based in (and directly violates) science. It's good that we could
clear that up.
Creation vs. evolution? Can't both be right? Can't God have created evolution? Why are creationists trying to use the logic of science to disprove
the logic of science?
Look, you read the creation story and say god made it all in seven days. I read it and say that god made evolution to be the creator of all things in
what could have best been described by people who were still thousands of years off from discovering science as "seven days". Let me give you some
Gen 1:1, NISB, "... God created the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face... 3 Then God said 'Let
there be light'; and there was light... 5 God called the light Day and the darkness he called Night..."
Ok, so God created Day in order to create Day on the first Day. Doesn't make too much sense, but if you're God, I guess you don't have to make
sense. Second day Gen 1:6 "... God said, 'Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters and let it separate the waters from the waters.' 7 So God
made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome... 8 God called the dome Sky." Great,
completely redefines astronomy, heat, chemistry and weight as we know them... but then again He is God.
I'm not saying that God couldn't have done those things, I'm just saying, why would there be light with no sky? How could there be Night with no
one having been around to have invented a calendar? This explanation is typical of those who think the Earth is the center of the universe and that
when it is night, the entire universe is dark and when it is day, the sun comes up everywhere (never mind only on our flat planet). Do creationists
think that Earth is flat? What constitutes Day, in this matter? Is it according to whether it is sunny or not? Is it according to man's first
calendar? The Hebrew calendar? The new and improved western calendar? Metric time or standard? If there were only some explanation... but
unfortunately the people at the time had know way of knowing that the Earth was round, or that light was hella fast or that the earth went around the
sun, not the other way around...
Let's continue Gen 1:14 "... and God said, 'Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for
signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the dome to give light upon the earth' ... God made the two great
lights--the greater to rule the day, the lesser to rule the night ... the Fourth Day". Oh yes! FINALLY, some definition of Day and Night exists... on
the Fourth Day. So were we to consider the first Three Days to have been non-days? Even you creationists have to agree that there is SOME figurative
language in the Bible.
Here's where I see evolution hidden in between the lines of the creation story: Gen 1:20 "...'Let the waters bring forth swarms of living
creatures, and let birds fly above the earth' ... 20 so God created the great sea monsters (I love that and just had to throw it in)... the Fifth
Day... 24 'Let the Earth be full of creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things...'... God made... everything that creeps upon the ground."
Then God made us to be masters of everything on earth. You see, to me, except for the fact that these all happen on separate ambiguous "Days", this
sounds a lot like evolution. God made the things of the sea first, then made "creeping" things on the earth after. Kind of like how scientists think
that life "creeped" out of the sea. "Sea monsters"? Sounds like dinosaurs to me. But they could be monsters if it'll keep the creationists happy.
Excepting Nessie (for you cryptozoologists), they are all dead.
I also want to mention that Earth aside, intelligent design seems to have worked out exactly the way that chaotic design has. Heavenly bodies came
first, then the earth slowly formed, then simple life started in the water and gave way to more complex life on land where humans eventually evolved
(which would about bring us up to speed in both intelligent and chaotic design).
Let me explain, in simple terms, the basics of evolution. (In most cases) A male and a female of a certain species mate and give genetic material to
their offspring. The offspring has genetic resemblance to their parents. (I'm sorry, if you're both white and your wife gives birth to a black baby,
she's cheating on you). Undeniably, certain people are smarter than others and certain people are more physically fit than others. Those that are of
better physical fitness and higher intelligence have a tendency to survive more often and longer than their inferiors. This survival tendency is
called "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest". If, for example all orange foxes have to eat green foxes and all green foxes have to eat
bugs, then the only green foxes that would survive would be the ones that were good at hiding, good at running, or good at making themselves a color
other than green. If the green fox does not adapt then it dies out and becomes extinct. The white fox has nothing to worry about because nothing eats
it... until people realize that their skin makes very expensive coats.
The theory then goes on to presume that inferior specimens of a certain species will be less likely to live to maturity and breeding age, thereby
eliminating their genes from the gene pool.
Genetic exchange is a scientific fact. The biggest part of evolution is a scientific fact. The theory resides in the apparent absence of smooth
transition from an old species to a newer one. It would take a virtually immortal person to witness and therefore scientifically prove that specific
species evolved into other specific species, but this is simply a scientific technicality.
Why is any of this relevant? Well, if modern society were to admit that evolution was false, that there is a guiding hand making everything move and
work as it should, then we as a society would also have to admit that science is false. It would, hypothetically, put us back in the stone age.
I want there to be a compromise. God gave us science in order to help us explain the universe and progress as a people. God gave us understanding so
that we might be something by which god might compare itself. God set everything in motion so that we could make and wear clothing and hunt and create
medicine to heal. If you want, you could say that God heals people... but don't say that God physically lays its hands on a sick person and he/she is
healed like magic... that is an insult to human intelligence. Just so we can get along, can you at least say that God set things in motion so that we
could create modern medicine over the past 300,000 or whatever years so that little Johnny might actually have a chance at beating cancer whereas the
millions of cancer victims before him perished?
Have we really not gotten past the point that anything we don't understand fully has to be the work of god, aliens, or magic? Can't we just say it
is what it is and until we can prove why, we won't claim to know? Like it or not, our minds work on a sort of programed logic. It is this logic which
allows us to speak. We need it in order to survive and learn. Why is it only applicable selectively? Why do we still need God to fill in the gaps? Can
we not just say that God is what it is (just like it said.. "I am that I am") and that the universe it what it is and to try not to mix them up
P.S. MA, good show. I totally agree that pushing religion in opposition to science would be a step backwards. Slowly but surely there are compromises
being made that make religion make more sense in light of science. Science is also giving up some of its own power, at least in part, by quantum
physics. There is a whole area of quantum physics which is devoted to deconstructing the fallacies of modern science.
[edit on 3-5-2005 by ServoHahn]