Speculations on Intelligent Design, & the Real World Options

[ThomPaine]

Biblical literalists may be making a mistake in pushing Intelligent Design into our schools. Let's take the theory at face value and consider it...

First, ID is decked out in the trappings of Science, which takes it out of the Belief category (Belief being 'knowing' something is true without proof), and into the realm of Science. Science allows for theories to be checked against real world observations.

Second, there is a logic gap here; if the Universe is intelligently designed, it does not automatically prove that the Biblical God did it. Other possibilities exist, some are:

The Universe is itself intelligent.
The appearance of intelligence is an artifact of our perceptions & mathematics.
Some other extremely powerful entity created the Universe.

We can now fairly competently observe the Universe, and the Earth, and the structural levels below us down to the subatomic scale. We can draw some interesting conclusions on the traits of any designing Intelligence, and compare them to our cosmological ideas. There are some things we shouldn't overlook.

Just a few:

All of the local atoms (in our bodies, on the Earth, in the Solar System) heavier than iron came from other exploding stars- novas.
The Hubble has seen so many planets around other stars that we can conclude that planets are not unusual, and perhaps most stars have them. We also see many novas out there, some in recent times, so we must conclude that not only is somewhat 'hard-hearted' recycling going on, but that Creation itself is still going on.

Human mapping (and the thinking it produces) almost always has the flaw of placing the 'locals' in the center of the frame. Page through an atlas and you'll find every country 'surrounded' by its neighbors, which of itself has caused many wars. The ancient Egyptians and Greeks knew and proved the Sun did not go around the Earth, altho it took two thousand years for everybody to accept the idea of not being at the center of things. Astronomers now are quite confident that our very ordinary star is on the fringes of our galaxy, which itself is part of a cluster far from the center of the universe.

What this implies is that we are not the primary focus of any Intelligent Designer, but just one 'project' among many.

Everybody knows about the big Dinosaur Die-Off, and paleontologists have found it is just one of many on Earth. Ice Ages have also pushed Life around pretty badly too- just look at Antarctica. (It's an urban myth that the dinos died to create oil for SUVs, they were not the source of the Earth's oil ).

At least on Earth, Life must struggle with the outcome uncertain. The dinosaurs existed for 100 times the span of humankind, and were then thoroughly erased. One must wonder about the purpose and implications of that within Intelligent Design. It is certainly a challenge to both designer-free Evolution and Omniscience in any designer. (During the heyday of Newtonian physics, people accepted the Great Watchmaker view of Creation, where the dinos were a botched experiment on the evolutionary road of progress to us.)

Within our biosphere, pretty much all Life must eat Life to survive. It wasn't always this way. The first critters in the primordial ocean took nutrients directly from the water, but as the eons passed they became first scavengers and then predators on each other- and then competition became a real life & death matter. We shouldn't be surprised that death and afterlife are at the core of all our religions, but what does this say about the designs of any Intelligent Designer? Chaos would be less cruel than our world is to all its creatures, with or without any afterlife.

Those proposing Intelligent Design must deal with all the knowledge we have of how our world works, or as it used to say in the Rosicrucian's comic book ads- this knowledge must die.

[vitw]

Much has been written on the forum on this issue.
If we're going with another thread, I would start by stating yet again that Intelligent Design is a silly concept, because its very nature is logically inconsistent.
Design requires Designer. In order to qualify as science, one would have to at least speculate on the nature of the Designer. At that point, one would have to explain the origins of the Designer. Without those two answers, in the form of testable hypothesis, there's nothing to the concept except ignorant superstitious antiscience nonsense. (That's not to say anyone isn't free to believe it. Believe away!)

[ThomPaine]

just a note- this was originally in original essays & was moved here. It is not about politics, it is about what universal 'design attributes' we can prove, and what they suggest- hence a different topic than the religious wrangle in the other thread.

[TheRestofUs]

Much has been written on the forum on this issue.
If we're going with another thread, I would start by stating yet again that Intelligent Design is a silly concept, because its very nature is logically inconsistent.
Design requires Designer. In order to qualify as science, one would have to at least speculate on the nature of the Designer. At that point, one would have to explain the origins of the Designer. Without those two answers, in the form of testable hypothesis, there's nothing to the concept except ignorant superstitious antiscience nonsense. (That's not to say anyone isn't free to believe it. Believe away!)

I agree that the concept cannot be proved! It is also true that it cannot be disproved!

Therefore it should not be taught in public schools! The concept (belief) should also NOT be ridiculed! Ridicule of a non-provable/non-DISprovable belief by someone professing to speak for science, is just arrogance, shows poor upbringing, AND is unscientific!

[onlyinNY]

I agree that the concept cannot be proved! It is also true that it cannot be disproved!

Therefore it should not be taught in public schools! The concept (belief) should also NOT be ridiculed! Ridicule of a non-provable/non-DISprovable belief by someone professing to speak for science, is just arrogance, shows poor upbringing, AND is unscientific!

When someone comes in and says reality is how you percieve it, I suggest you post the definition of reality..... That which is real....
then post perception....that which is percieved, seen or taken in...
Then post the definition for delusion.....
Reality is not dependant on perception, this is 5th grade philosophy!!
The atom was real way before it was percieved, Reality is true, real, identifiable and fully supported evidence.
Perception is subject to delusions as well as reality.
They are independant things, and I have let this 5th grade philosphy go on way too long.

[rla]

Both of the 1st two posts seem so obviously true and sensible, one must ask why does the issue persist? Why are people so affraid to question the judgement of their ancestors? As a present day adult have you not found that your parents were wrong about as often as they were right? Is it not obvious that knowledge is expanding at a very fast rate? Has it been your past experience that people who often and publically profess religious conviction are more trust worthy than those who do not. I think we will eventually find a ver high correlation between fear of
questioning one's past religious encultration and fear of terriorism. On the other hand people who throughly accept their humanness and the humanness of
others experience less debilitating fear.

This post has been edited by rla: Jan 30 2005, 11:44 AM

[Alexander38]

I love my grandpa, may he rest in piece, he was very knowlegable in the bible, and one off the things he told me as a kid has stuck whit me ever since.
*If God createt the universe whit its stars and galaxies. then it would be the hight of hubris to say "We understand him" since our galaxy alone has more than 5 billion stars (Hubble has increased that number to more than 50') the mind and power behind that would be totally beyond our comprehension. it would be like asking a single amobae to fly and design a space craft, whit all off the calculations therein.
God as an Entity is impossible to understand and grasp, he is simply to big.*

[vitw]

I have let this 5th grade philosphy go on way too long.

The perception/reality debate goes beyond 5th grade.
In fact, it goes beyond the understanding of most humans, regardless of training.
At the quantum level, reality exists only as probability until probability "collapses" following measurement (perception)
At the macroscopic level, reality cannot exist beyond human perception, simply because perception defines it.
Is there such a thing a negative time?
Matter with negative density?
Meaningless concepts to a human, whether "real" or not.
My daughter asked me "Is there a color that no one has ever seen?" Of course not, because by definition color is radiation you can see. To say there's radiation out there perceived by eyes of other species doesn't make it "real" color. That's one small example.
There is no absolute reality indepedent of observation, and observation is nothing more than human perception. It is as simple as 5th grade philosophy, but in the other direction!

[onlyinNY]

The perception/reality debate goes beyond 5th grade.
In fact, it goes beyond the understanding of most humans, regardless of training.
At the quantum level, reality exists only as probability until probability "collapses" following measurement (perception)
At the macroscopic level, reality cannot exist beyond human perception, simply because perception defines it.
Is there such a thing a negative time?
Matter with negative density?
Meaningless concepts to a human, whether "real" or not.
My daughter asked me "Is there a color that no one has ever seen?" Of course not, because by definition color is radiation you can see. To say there's radiation out there perceived by eyes of other species doesn't make it "real" color. That's one small example.
There is no absolute reality indepedent of observation, and observation is nothing more than human perception. It is as simple as 5th grade philosophy, but in the other direction!

The color is real because it exists, anything that exist is real, its simple. Reality is not just what you percieve, its an all encompassing concept. Theres no way you can make this argument without creating a reality for each individual, and thats simply not true. Just because one does not see a fact, does not make it unreal. Its that simple. Your talking a whole bunch of hooey.Look up the definitioon of it,that which is real, true or historical. Just because a human does not "percieve" a reality does not invalidate it. If thats your argument we would have floated off the globe before Newton saw the apple. The atom never existed, and so on. There are surely many real discoveries to be made, conceptual or otherwise, but to claim they are not real till seen is a basically stupid statement.

[vitw]

Ridicule of a non-provable/non-DISprovable belief by someone professing to speak for science, is just arrogance, shows poor upbringing, AND is unscientific!

A little judgemental, don't you think?
If someone tried to tell me the earth sprang forth from the belly of a giant snake, I would not ridicule them. I would politely say "That's nice."
If they wrote a book proclaiming same however, and told me it couldn't be disproved, I would call them silly.
If that's ridicule, so be it.
This is mainly a political forum. If someone said George W Bush is our greatest president, I would politely say "Interesting you would think that."
But if they published an article expressing same, and challenged anyone to disprove the claim, I would say they didn't understand history and were just plain stupid. That's not poor upbringing, it's the desire to bring logic into a discussion.

[onlyinNY]

re·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-l-t)
n. pl. re·al·i·ties
The quality or state of being actual or true.
One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: “the weight of history and political realities” (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.).
The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality.
Read the definition......

Nothing about being percieved to be real...


per·cep·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-spshn)
n.
The process, act, or faculty of perceiving.
The effect or product of perceiving.
Psychology.
Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory.
The neurological processes by which such recognition and interpretation are effected.

Insight, intuition, or knowledge gained by perceiving.
The capacity for such insight

Perception is a way to see reality I agree, but also shows delusion....
de·lu·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-lzhn)
n.

The act or process of deluding.
The state of being deluded.
A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
Psychiatry. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

Reality is a firm concept, one which man will never fully know. Lack of knowledge or vision does not make the real any less real. AND FAULTY PERCEPTION does not make real a delusion.

Therefore...reality is what you percieve or make of it....IS 5th grade philosphy...pure junk....

[onlyinNY]

Reality is that which exists or is true.
If you misinterpret facts, its a reality that its your opinion, but it does not make your invalid conclusions real!! Thats the basic truth. Its 5th grade philosphy and is unsupportable by the basic definitions of the words.

The quality or state of being actual or true

Thats reality

perception is merely the way you see things be they reality or delusion.

To argue these facts is to deny ....REALITY

[vitw]

If thats your argument we would have floated off the globe before Newton saw the apple. There are surely many real discoveries to be made, conceptual or otherwise, but to claim they are not real till seen is a basically stupid statement.

You seem quite emotional over this one. I suggest you read The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch. It's the best book I've ever read connecting the quantum world to reality.
Let's not confuse undiscovered scientific concepts with non-reality. Your example proves my point. True, there was no comprehensive theory of gravity before Newton. And the "nonperception" of that didn't affect the reality of things staying attached to the ground. But the whole notion of gravity as an attractive force from a distance is based solely on human perception. General Relativity demonstrated that gravity is the bending of space-time. That concept is beyond human experience, so we have to rely on gravity wave detectors to prove it. And we're still waiting.
The 5th grader would define gravity erroneously, because his perception of it would be limited. So what is gravity then? What we humans perceive it to be, or what the differential equations tell us about reality?

[onlyinNY]

You seem quite emotional over this one. I suggest you read The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch. It's the best book I've ever read connecting the quantum world to reality.
Let's not confuse undiscovered scientific concepts with non-reality. Your example proves my point. True, there was no comprehensive theory of gravity before Newton. And the "nonperception" of that didn't affect the reality of things staying attached to the ground. But the whole notion of gravity as an attractive force from a distance is based solely on human perception. General Relativity demonstrated that gravity is the bending of space-time. That concept is beyond human experience, so we have to rely on gravity wave detectors to prove it. And we're still waiting.
The 5th grader would define gravity erroneously, because his perception of it would be limited. So what is gravity then? What we humans perceive it to be, or what the differential equations tell us about reality?

Whether we or anyone percieve a real event, force, or concept, makes no difference. Its real. I'll take an old saying and switch it a bit.OK?

If a tree falls in the woods, and no one percieves it, its sound wave or anything abouit it, Did it really fall?
Of course it did. Reality is that which is real. Not that which man sees. Reality may in fact percieve itself, I dunno, but its a firm concept. Misinterpretations or lack of perception of reality do not put the tree back up, it truly happened and existed.

[vitw]

AND FAULTY PERCEPTION does not make real a delusion.

I think the point of us perception proponents is not that human perception is faulty, but that it is limited.
If you really believe this, how do you account for quantum phenomena? Wave-particle duality is not a delusion. Neither is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. These are physical realities that are observer dependent. Surely you must be familiar with this stuff!

[onlyinNY]

I think the point of us perception proponents is not that human perception is faulty, but that it is limited.
If you really believe this, how do you account for quantum phenomena? Wave-particle duality is not a delusion. Neither is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. These are physical realities that are observer dependent. Surely you must be familiar with this stuff!

Limited perception does not change reality. Reality is being formed and reformed every second, it is fluid. Uncertainty is a reality isn't it? Contradiction is a reality too?
My whole thing is reality is not how you percieve it, because perception is flawwed or limited, your actually making my point. Just because its a reality that your perception is flawwed does not negate realities you do not see, or see incorrectly. I have a twisted theory that reality proves itself, that which exists confirms itself, independant of all other beings or truths. It independantly exists, confirms itself and creates its own mark in history.
Just because I did not see things does not reduce their reality, this plays out on a much larger scale. Existence creates reality, not perception.

[vitw]

If a tree falls in the woods, and no one percieves it, its sound wave or anything abouit it, Did it really fall?

Love these examples! Actually the question is, If a tree falls in the woods, and No one HEARS IT, or MEASURES the waves, does it make a sound?
And the correct answer is.....No. Because "sound" by definition is auditory stimulation, and requires a receptor.
Simple hypnosis can demonstrate that principle. Can a cool match burn you? You bet! Does getting poked with a sharp object hurt? Not necessarily. Are those examples of delusions or reality?

[onlyinNY]

Limited perception does not change reality. Reality is being formed and reformed every second, it is fluid. Uncertainty is a reality isn't it? Contradiction is a reality too?
My whole thing is reality is not how you percieve it, because perception is flawwed or limited, your actually making my point. Just because its a reality that your perception is flawwed does not negate realities you do not see, or see incorrectly. I have a twisted theory that reality proves itself, that which exists confirms itself, independant of all other beings or truths. It independantly exists, confirms itself and creates its own mark in history.
Just because I did not see things does not reduce their reality, this plays out on a much larger scale. Existence creates reality, not perception.

Even your perceptions, whether true or not are a reality.....This does not make untrue vision correct, it merely says they exist. Which probably goes to your perception dependant realities too,If you percieve truth or lie or anything , it existed as a perception, yet does not change reality itself. It merely gets added to it. It encompasses everything that is real. Even thoughts. It doesn't validate them it merely points to there existence.

[onlyinNY]

Love these examples! Actually the question is, If a tree falls in the woods, and No one HEARS IT, or MEASURES the waves, does it make a sound?
And the correct answer is.....No. Because "sound" by definition is auditory stimulation, and requires a receptor.
Simple hypnosis can demonstrate that principle. Can a cool match burn you? You bet! Does getting poked with a sharp object hurt? Not necessarily. Are those examples of delusions or reality?

No the question was did it actually fall even if not percieved, and the answer is yes!!! Your now trying to change my words, I said if a tree falls and no one percieves it at all in any way, did it fall? AND IT IS REALITY THAT IT DID!! I merely took an old silly question and changed its form to prove this hokey 5th grade philosphy that reality is how you percieve it crap!! you just lowered yourself to changing my words now. You must be out of true arguments. You just fell below the standard of truth.

[vitw]

Uncertainty is a reality isn't it?

Absolutely! If you believe that, guess it's just a matter of where you put your faith. In the relative or the absolute.
I can't disagree there exist absolute truths, apart from perception. You win.