I think when looking at the sophistication of the world, intelligent design makes more sense than development by chance. The evidence in favor of God is stronger than the evidence against.
Great post, will watch the vids when I have some time.
Originally posted by BarcsThat's right. Snowflakes are not information. They are data. Snowflakes do not follow any decoding or encoding. DNA however, is prescriptive information, because it is decoded and encoded constantly, and describing a specific function, pretty much like a recipe. Any meaningful information is independent of matter. That's why you can store the same data on a cd, on a hard drive, a usb stick and so on. It's the same reason we can extract the DNA code and store it in any way we want. That's leaving out the fact that it has semantics blah blah.
Snowflakes are not information. They are H2O droplets frozen while moving through the air. The problem with intelligent design is that it takes something we do not fully understand and inserts a designer there BECAUSE we don't understand. The one argument they use is the complexity of cells. I think we should let the scientist do their thing and learn more about the cells before jumping to any conclusions. There's also no reason to assume that DNA today is as complex as it was originally 3 billion or so years ago.edit on 11-12-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by AdamsMurmurExactly. That's the biggest issue people have here.. They are so hateful towards religion that they fail to see that the 'designer' doesn't even have to be a religious God. One could also simply conclude that nature itself is intelligent. Or it could lead to a perspective of the biocentric universe, and there are more possibilities. People's grudges towards religion blind them from the possibilities.
You think an 'intelligent designer' has to mean a guy sitting up in the clouds that moulded the entire cosmos as a potter moulds clay. Fair enough, that's how Abrahamic religions put it. Truth be told, it may not be 'designed,' but it's intelligent. More accurately, I say it designs itself, or more precisely, improvises as it goes along, with no thought or main purpose behind any of it -- because it can, and has been -- which, up till now, lead to beings like us which can actively question their surroundings, cut it up, try to see how it works, and put meaning behind it all.
But of course, anything we say or do is our interpretations of that 'improvised dance' we call the cosmos and reality. You can call it God, or made by a God(s), or a fluke, or the product of nothing, or whatever else, but that doesn't change what it is, which is everything.
Personally, that makes the most sense.
I think gravity is analogous, but more specific to how biology develops not how matter acts. Because of the way the universe appears to be intelligent, I think biology drives the universe and is not the result of good conditions of matter.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
I don't follow the monotheist argument, because it begs the assumption that the universal force is conscious and has something comparable to a 'personality'. I myself lean more towards a 'principle', a law similar to gravity. It doesn't require variation, because nothing exists without its influence and therefore nothing develops BEYOND its influence.