It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Atheism or Intelligent Design?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 07:12 AM
Atheism or Intelligent Design?

The question is simple, which is, was intelligence involved in the formation of the universe and life as we know it, or not?

The world’s most famous atheist today is Oxford University’s Dr. Richard Dawkins, an ethologist or one who studies animal behavior. He not only rejects the idea that intelligence was involved in the formation of the universe and life as we know it, but viciously ridicules anyone who does believe in Intelligent Design.

Years before Dawkins arrived on the scene, the world’s most famous atheist was also a former Oxford University professor named Dr. Antony Flew. Dr. Flew just passed away in April of 2010.

Flew shocked the world of atheism in 2007 when he wrote a book entitled, There Is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.

Dr. Flew explained how his decision to renounce atheism and accept deism was a gradual one taking the better part of 20 years. He always believed in allowing the evidence to lead him. Flew said, “The argument for Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.”

Flew went on to say, “It now seems to me that the findings of more than 50 years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument for Intelligent Design.”

In an interview with Dr. Benjamin Wiker reported in Wiker’s article entitled One of the World’s Most Famous Atheists Changes His Mind, Professor Flew went on to explain that a growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical universe was a major factor in his change of mind.

Flew also said, “I was also convinced by my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself, which is far more complex than the physical universe, can “only” be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source.”

Flew went on to blast Richard Dawkins’ and his book The God Delusion for Dawkins’ “comical effort” to argue that the origin of life can be attributed to a “Lucky Chance”. Flew went on to say about Dawkins, “If that’s the best argument you have, then the game is over.”

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 07:27 AM
That Dr Flew changed his mind is no proof of intelligent design, it just proves he changed his mind. Many people change their views in older age, too.

Just because something is complex, doesn't mean that it was created.

I could argue that the universe was created by Colin the giant immortal intergalactic lobster. There is no argument that proves god over Colin. Get real people, god is as much an invention as Colin and no more or less probable.

We simply have not reached the answer yet.

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 07:34 AM
Flew's book is suspected to be fraudulent

The book was ghost written by Roy Varghese and in 2007 Flew had been hospitalized for well over a year with dementia. Rabid christians have a history of such deathbed conversion frauds.

[edit on 5-6-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 07:44 AM
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

If true, what an despicable way to rubbish the memory of a great scientist.

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 07:47 AM

Originally posted by bwinwright was intelligence involved in the formation of the universe and life as we know it, or not?

People use the phrase "intelligent design" as a synonym for "God". If you, too, are doing that, then I'd have to answer "probably not". However, if you are using the word "intelligence" to mean some sort of basic, "cosmic" quality of knowledge contained in the universe, then I would lean toward a more positive response.

As an atheist, I believe that there is intelligence associated with ALL life. A fern "knows" exactly how to be a fern. My lungs posses some sort of "intelligence" that allows them to function properly as human lungs. But is there one Source, a conscious entity, who imparted this ability to everything in the universe? I seriously doubt it. If our existence can be attributed to anything, it's simply nature. It's natural order, which possesses the "intelligence" to make a fern act like a fern and my lungs act like lungs.

In An Interview with Flew, he said:

I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.

That's an argument we've had here time and time again. It's hard to believe a man of science would state a claim and then put the burden of proof on those who would argue with him. But there you have it.

"This is what I think - Prove me wrong"... :shk:

Wiker then asks:

Benjamin Wiker: As for evidence, you cite a lot of the most recent science, yet you remark that your discovery of the Divine did not come through "experiments and equations," but rather, "through an understanding of the structures they unveil and map." Could you explain? Does that mean that the evidence that led you to God is not really, at heart, scientific?

Anthony Flew: It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence.

[edit on 6/5/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 07:53 AM
I am going with intelligent design. I always laughed at them, but after hearing about the Anunnaki creating us just to be slave labor. Then I have to agree with them. if GOD created us, then we would be perfect and no defects would be evident.

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:12 AM
reply to post by dragnet53

Why would we be perfect?

I mean, the only way you could use perfect is to suggest we were made the way a creator meant for us to be created. Which is really only perfect in the mind of the creator, but then again, maybe that is all that matters?


Anyway, I believe intelligent design is possible.

But there is no direct proof of it.

Until some sentient thing comes to Earth and proves that it helped facilitated the evolution and properties of everything here and so forth; I don't believe you will have any REAL proof. Just speculation based on coincidental occurrences.

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:20 AM

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
reply to post by dragnet53

Why would we be perfect?

I mean, the only way you could use perfect is to suggest we were made the way a creator meant for us to be created. Which is really only perfect in the mind of the creator, but then again, maybe that is all that matters?


Anyway, I believe intelligent design is possible.

But there is no direct proof of it.

Until some sentient thing comes to Earth and proves that it helped facilitated the evolution and properties of everything here and so forth; I don't believe you will have any REAL proof. Just speculation based on coincidental occurrences.

no direct proof???

mitochondria DNA suggest we are 200,000 years old.

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:57 AM
Intelligence is required for intelligent design, and intelligence is a feature of consciousness. Hence, the question boils down to "what is consciousness?"

Is it something that is locally produced by electro-chemical reactions in the brains of bio-organisms, or is it something more fundamental in nature, which can be ascribed a non-local "field-like" character.

For thousands of years prior to the advent of modern objective science (a few hundred years ago), the general consensus worldwide was that consciousness pre-exists as a fundamental, indestructible, and eternal feature of nature. The prevalent view was that consciousness can neither be created nor destroyed, but it can change forms--just like energy.

Hence, many of the ancient cultures believed in the immortality of the soul--or the immortality of consciousness--or at least some type of consciousness after the death of the body. Moreover, several ancient traditions held that consciousness exists as a non-localized, formless, and invisible field, which pervades all space--and which has the potential "to know" itself. This is consistent with the notion that the word "consciousness" comes from the Latin scio = to know.

Currently, modern science has no real theory of consciousness. Our understanding of consciousness is primarily phenomenological, rather than theoretical. To use an analogy, this is similar to our understanding of electricity and magnetism prior to the advent of Maxwell's electromagnetic field theory.

At that time, we knew that if you rubbed two pieces of cloth together, you could produce electric sparks, or that if you brought two magnets into close proximity, they would either attract or repel. But it was only with the advent of a genuine theory of the electromagnetic field that we developed a more sophisticated theoretical understanding of electric and magnetic forces, and their relation--which allowed us to develop methods for generating electricty, and paved the way for the electronic revolution of today.

Perhaps the ancients were correct. Perhaps, consciousness, and hence, intelligence is a fundamental feature of nature, which is exists in the form of a non-localized, all-pervading field that pervades all space, and which is intimately invovled in the "creation" of everything, from the smallest elementary particle, to all forms of organic life, to the vast panorama of galaxies in the night sky.

In this case, the notion of "intelligent design" would be a fundamental feature of the universe, such that intelligence plays as fundamental role as energy in the creation of anything.

This may sound "religious" but in actuality it transcends any specific cultural or personal concept of God. If consciousness, and hence intelligence, is a fundamental feature of the universe, as fundamental as energy, then it should be possible to develop a "field theory of consciousness", which is just as rigorous, scientific, and mathematical as a "field theory of energy".

The restriction of the "intelligent design" argument to the evolution/creation of biological organisms is I think myopic. The issue needs to be considered on a much broader scale in terms of everything that exists.

I think we still have a long way to go in our scientific understanding of the universe. Wouldnt it be ironic, if in the end, our modern scientific understanding turns out to be consistent with the most ancient systems of knowledge on our planet--which held that consciousness is truly universal, indestructible, and eternal.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by Angiras]

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 03:57 AM
The main problem with ID is that at some point life must have been the product of chance. If we were designed by a creator, then who designed the creator? And who designed the creator's creator? Who designed the creator's creator's creator? Who designed the creator's creator's creator's creator?

Also, why would intelligent life design the whole universe? Wouldn't it be better/quicker/smarter/more efficient to just create the universe and allow life to develop through evolution?

Funnily enough evolution itself is a form of intelligent design. People choose mates who they believe have good qualities, ie using your intelligence to design the human race. There is no god involved in that.

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 04:21 AM
reply to post by Cthulwho

Yeah, but what started the whole thing? Something or else? Then what started this "something"? And so on.

Stephen Hawking addressed this very thing. But then again, it doesn't answer as to why the universe exist.

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 04:28 AM
As a Spiritual Humanist - - I agree there is an Intelligent Design.

Christian related????? Absolutely Not!!!!!!

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 06:00 AM

Just because something is complex, doesn't mean that it was created.
reply to post by mithrawept

I think the more complex something is, the less chance it just magically formed by itself..

Lets say no intelligence was involved is the answer.
So Atheism turns out to be right. Right about what? If atheism turns out to be right what will it be right about? It will only be right about some people being wrong about their beliefs. Hardly anything honorable and no great addition to humanity or civilization.

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.
C.S. Lewis

[edit on 6-6-2010 by randyvs]

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:02 AM
Imagine an artist who paints a canvas white and places it in a gallery. The canvas is only white, there is nothing else on it. Everybody that comes to see the painting stares at it, some see only the white nothingness, some see landscapes, some see portraits, some see abstracts and surrealistic images.
(Note: It has happened...)

Of course, all of the images that are perceived are constructs of the imagination, created by the people that view the image and try to lock into what the artist was trying to convey, even although there is nothing to actually see.

Is this an accident? Was this the point that the artist was trying to make? That would be a philosophical question since we would only have the artist's word for what he/she was originally trying to achieve.

However, whether by design or by accident, it is the case that the artist has created a work that allows people to perceive a wide variety of images, transitory that they may be, changeable according to the perception and mood of the viewer and regardless of what the artist actually intended.

Whether or not 'life' was created by design or by accident, it has happened, the circumstances that allowed life to be created exist and within the almost infinite bounds of the universe would not be limited to Earth.

We also have to consider that life was inevitable considering the wide variety physical parameters in the universe. Now, if it is inevitable, then it cannot be an accident. Inevitability becomes certainty.

If I pour out a can of petrol in every room of my house and wander around smoking, the chances are that a fire is going to occur. Is it an accident to create the circumstances that lead to an inevitability?

Maybe in terms of human behaviour, yes, that artist may have decided not to paint the white canvas in which case those 'virtual' creations would not have been imagined by the viewers, yet, in terms of the universe, there is no question that the universe would not support life in some form or another, even if we didn't recognise it as such.

Life itself is largely mechanical. We look at a rock and think nothing of it, yet rocks exists within a paradigm that spans thousands of years, moving and shaping the geographic forms over millennia. We tend to look at life within a much smaller time frame, the existence of a bacteria, the growth of a tree, the life of a human. We simply think in organic terms.

If we can detract ourselves from individual examination and look at the bigger picture, then we can see that over a long enough time, even human life is inevitable. Once you have bacteria, you have the possibility of evolution, once you have evolution you have the possibility of complex life forms developing from that primordial slime. The inorganic 'life' can create the exact circumstances for organic 'life'. The lifeless gives birth to life.

Unfortunately, the question of whether there is 'intelligent design' is in itself permeated with a Christianised view of the universe. It tends to promote the idea that ID requires a primary entity that "does exist as distinct from and prior to creation"

Prior to creation? I can go with that to a certain extent.
Distinct from creation? That is a Christianised perspective.

The 'distinct' point of view differentiates the conjurer from the trick that is performed. It separates the cook from the meal that is produced. This is product of human nature, we regard ourselves as 'creators' as distinct from what we create. However, this causes more issues than might be immediately obvious. It negates the perfection created through imperfection that is inherent within the universe itself. It creates a conundrum of creation that has distracted humanity since the inception of grunting.

That one little 'distinct' point corrupts our intelligence and prevents us from realising our true place in the universe and stops us from harmonising the work of science and spirituality; faith becomes a waste of time and belief a madness to be cured.

If you accept that a 'primary' entity can BE the universe, a whole new world of possibilities opens up where science can be reconciled with spirituality, where the inevitability of life can be accepted without compromising the work of argument and reasoning and the search for empirical evidence.

Just one little phrase: "distinct from"...

Intelligent design is not within the conjurer or the cook, both are simply catalysts for the reality that is already possible. It is within the trick and the meal itself, it is the fact that we look upon the illusion with awe and can submit to sublime experience without the need to argue how we should feel or react to the reality of what we perceive - that is the reality of experience, of life.

That white canvas... it was always going to be painted, and once it was, it was going to be all things to everybody. It was inevitable.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by SugarCube]

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:40 AM
At the end of the day no one knows beyond reasonable doubt who or what created everything, I think alot of the views about a deity or god can be explained by our tremendous ability to anthropomorphize everything. For me the "big question" is beyond the human race's comprehension at this point...

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:56 AM
This subject matter has gone in circles for a hell of a long time now. Surely the only way to gain proof of one or the other is for either
a. the creator him/her/itself appears to us ALL and says yup. I made all this
b. Conclusive proof is found that will convince intelligent designers of no creator.

Neither likely of happening

Why does no one seem to think yes evolution makes an awful lot of sense.the creator must be really clever to imprint the potential to evolve upon his first creations! does this make sense anyone but me? ( by the way I personally have no religious views and believe in evolution but surely this is a simple way to please most folks)
this may be a naive view of things but I like it

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:06 AM
Just because we don't fully understand something, or something seems complex doesn't mean there is a creator. In ancient times, people believed comets were a "sign of God" because they couldn't explain we can and know that it isn't a sign of God.

I don't get why so many people aren't humble enough to just say "WE DON'T KNOW" yet instead chose to make up stuff. Until some guy/girl/it actually speaks up and says "yup, it was me", we can't say that intelligent design is possible. And even if there is a creator, that doesn't mean he wants to be worshiped. If he wanted that, he'd probably tour the world instead of hiding so well that NO ONE has ever seen him/her/it.

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:34 AM
reply to post by bwinwright
For the love of God...or ID or we need a new atheism thread?!

Friend, you've been on ATS for two years. Does it really need another atheist/God/ID thread? We've seen a couple of hundred variations already. New members I can understand...but two years? C'mon! Is there anything new left to say?

On topic...I'll go atheist on this this one...

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 10:36 AM
I would question the intelligence of a creator that didn't use evolution to create the diverse and bountiful life we see on earth.

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 10:47 AM

Originally posted by dragnet53

no direct proof???

mitochondria DNA suggest we are 200,000 years old.

Ahhh JEEZ.

Firstly, the title: "Everything You Know Is Wrong" is a catchphrase used by cultists and I'll usually avoid anyone trying that line on me. I watched the video anyway

Secondly, his arguments are as absurd as any other creationist. It amounts to the fact that we have less chromosomes than some other primate species, therefore the Annunaki came are and did it. Huh? Oh, and be sure to buy the book.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in