posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:32 PM
Originally posted by jessejamesxx
I guess for us to debate if intelligent design exists, we must establish what intelligent design is. If you're referencing biblical story, that's
absurd. We didn't *poof* into existence.
Thank you for your opinion.
If you mean that maybe something created all of the constants and laws of physics & the giant ball of mass that the universe started out as,
then maybe you're onto something I can agree with. *If* there is an intelligent designer, he just set everything up to go. He caused the 'big
bang' (or whatever theory you subscribe to) & put evolution into motion. Pretty much no one can disagree with the possibility, and it concedes with
both sides of the argument.
That's a start; the important thing is to agree that the First Cause as I mentioned is at least possible. An interesting question arises here as
well: which came first, the laws of physics or the matter they act upon?
The problem I have with the intelligent design idea, is that everything in human history that we don't understand, we assign to a higher
People make this claim a lot, but anecdotal evidence is hardly comprehensive. We cannot assert that "everything" people don't understand is
attributed to a higher power or magic etc. We can just as easily cite the many scientists of the past who were devout theists and set about their
discoveries expressly because they believed God created an orderly universe, and it was left to them to discover the details. Usually this objection
to ID is motivated by a desire to "poison the well" by consigning all theistic thought to superstition and fear before a debate even begins.
We simply don't understand the science of how life could appear 'out of thin air', so a higher being must have done it. These things
happened just a couple hundred years ago, and probably are still happening now somewhere. We aren't above it - We're barely out of the
One presupposition is not superior to another; it is no better to put one's blind faith in future scientific discoveries that may or may not ever
materialize, than it is to put it in God. In fact, some theoretical physics is barely distinguishable from what has always been called "magic",
since it postulates that things really can appear "poof" out of nowhere and without even so much as an "abracadabra". All we have right now is the
laws of physics as we know them, and more importantly, empirical science which is restricted to observation and experimentation.
The analogy of the junkyard is a poor one IMO. When a giant mass explodes, whichever temperature it explodes, creates what density the atoms
are (think table of elements). That temperature creates brand new atoms within the spectrum of density (I'm rough on my chemistry, forgive my
vocabulary) We have no idea of all of the different chemical reactions between these atoms, maybe some of them could create the beginnings of
Again I appeal to empirical science: what do we observe? Has any explosion ever created something that looked designed and performed some function the
material could not perform before it blew up? The central question is how to recognize design or intelligence. The SETI project purported to have some
way of telling the difference, but on what basis? If you remember the 60s film or book Andromeda Strain, that was the very question they sought to
answer. Where is the line between life and non-life? What is design and what is accident or purposelessness? Can any process lacking an intelligence
working toward a goal ever result in anything but zero net gain, since it literally doesn't know or care where it's going?
Infinity is a huge number that I don't think you're grasping...
Nobody truly grasps infinity. But if the odds mean nothing, then which of us is really the one who is willing to throw common sense out the window
just to keep their faith, whichever faith it is? We both know we're in the realm of probability when it comes to origins, not provability. The way I
see it, the odds of ID are at least 50/50, but the odds of non-ID to account for what we observe are infinitesimal. You're saying that even the
tiniest odds are good enough to overcome 50/50, if I'm following you accurately. If so, then I think that's as far as we can go; there's little
point in further debate when we have such widely divergent ideas of what constitutes "reasonable".