Intelligent design (ID) often gets rejected out of hand as just not science. However, I think that is a bit harsh. I think we should accept that ID is at least a scientific idea.
After all, science is more than just proven theories (like natural selection, the standard model of particle physics, etc.). Science also includes facts (e.g., fossils, DNA patterns, atomic and molecular spectra, etc.) and speculative (yet to be proved) ideas (eg., string ‘theory’). We have got to encourage speculation and novel ideas in science. There must be room to dream. After all, how else we will get hypotheses for testing?
Of course most ideas in science are actually wrong – and we know that because they are proven wrong by testing. There’s no shortage of examples but here is one. In the early 1960s a colleague proposed the idea that the dark areas on the moon (the ‘seas’) were actually composed of organic material – a sort of ashphalt. He had his reasons for this. However, within a few years we knew that was not the case. So another idea bit the dust. He accept the fact that his idea was not good – but it didn’t stop him going on to propose other ideas.
” . . . assessment can not be based on unrealised hypotheses or unproved conjectures, or on the hopes of the theory’s adherents. This is science, and the truth of a theory can be assessed based only on results that have been published in the scientific literature; thus we must be careful to distinguish between conjecture, evidence, and proof.”
And that is the problem with ID. It is only a conjecture – a speculative idea. There is no evidence. Nothing of substance has been published in the scientific literature. And it’s not as if the idea is new – it’s been around at least since William Paley’s“argument from design” in 1802. ID ‘research’ is limited to trying to find ‘gaps’ in evolutionary science and ‘quote mining‘ the literature is search of justification for their own unproven idea. They even have a name for this – reinterpretation research.
They do no work at all on an ID theory – they don’t even have a hypothesis to test!
Yet the proponents of ID attempt to claim their idea a solid science – solid enough to be taught to children in science classes! Alongside scientific theories which have oodles of evidential support and produce testable predictions! This would be like my colleague from the early sixties demanding that his theory of asphalt lunar seas should have been taught as science.
ID proponents go so far as demanding that the whole nature of science be changed so that ideas without evidential support can be accepted as respectable theory. This is the real logic of their attack on science for being naturalistic or materialist. As Ken Miller says, this is really a proposal to create “an intellectual welfare for an idea that can’t make it on its own.“
Science cannot deny that the universe is intelligently designed. What stands in the way is the lack of an intelligent first causal principle. Quantum theory describes fundamental reality as consisting in irreducible chance. So intelligence plays no part in such an interpretation of the microworld.
Thankfully, there are a couple of flies in the ointment of our understanding of quantum theory. No one knows if the Schrodinger equation or complex vectors in Hilbert space describe what is really going on in the microworld (although it does provide an effective mathematical tool to describe a superposition of states). The Schrodinger equation also does not tell us how probabilities make a discontinuous (discrete) jump into a specific outcome (collapse of the wavepacket).
Another fly in the ointment is our inability to unify Einstein’s general relativity theory with quantum theory.
Intelligent design would gain scientific respect if the potentials or “tendencies to exist” in the quantum vacuum somehow actually COOPERATED to bring about a preferred direction and specific outcome. This would also mean that nature’s incessant drive towards complexity and self-organization had its principle of determination in the microworld of intelligently actualizing possibilities.
These are some of the issues that I will be addressing in my next book project, “Proving God.” I believe, like Roger Penrose, that complex curvatures (non-linear principles of superposition) are the key to a correct theory of quantum gravity and understanding how gravitational systems generate structure throughout the universe.
I ultimately plan to show that this universal organizing principle has its origins in the nonmaterial and unifying dynamics of spiritual love.
GoodGuy spins castles in the air based upon possible unknown of quantum theory. A century ago, cranks did the same thing with electromagnetism.
“Intelligent design would gain scientific respect if the potentials or “tendencies to exist” in the quantum vacuum somehow actually COOPERATED to bring about a preferred direction and specific outcome.”
Do you have any evidence at all for this hypothesis? Anything besides a mere wish on your part that it might possibly be true? One way you can tell the difference between a religious motivation for a hypothesis and a scientific motivation is that the scientific proponent gets up off his keister and actually proposes some research to test whether it might be supported by any evidence, or consistent with other facts. The others merely engage in woo.
Edward Sylvia, I would say that ‘proving god’ is a mugs game – and certainly not required.
After all – we know that gods exist – in the minds and cultures of (some) humans. That’s something we can investigate and come to grips with.
But attempting to ‘prove’ gods as objectively existing entities is surely just an exercise in cherry-picking evidence to justify a preconceived belief.
It seems that the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics provides a very useful mystical ‘explanation’ for all sorts of weird ideas.
Yes, Gasdocpol, many (if not most) theists accept that. Obviously there are others who can’t accept that because it requires a god assumption.
However, the problem arises not from belief in a god, or a god which underlies everything (the ultimate cause). The problem is the claim that “God did it” as an explanation.
Surely the theist scientists can’t accept that – she has to ask – “Yes, but how did God do it?” In that sense they are doing exactly the same thing as the non-theist scientist that they work with.
Enjoyed this post.
I agree that ID is too often rejected without even a sliver of consideration, however this is partly due to the harsh ID only belief. At least science leaves itself open (most of the time) to being disproved.
leftoverkumquats: Quite literally, if there is no evidence, there is nothing to consider. Might be the reason its usually dismissed out of hand by many: no evidence, nothing for them to consider. Just food for thought.
Heraclides: And yet millions of people turn to religion with no evidence that the God they devote their lives to exists. Why are these millions so willing not only to consider but to commit to religion?
Pointless comparison, or rather not even comparable.
The first post (9, mine) refers to something being compared with existing science. Evidence required.
The second (10, yours) refers to religion. Only “faith” required. (What you want to call faith: personally I call it gulliblity 🙂 Sometimes it seems a case of “needyness” winning over commonsense.)
Point is, these two aren’t comparable: your “point” in post 10 is moot.
(You might also want to note that religion doesn’t require you to compare the religion’s view on things with existing knowledge, as science does. If anything, religions can ask people to “forget” contradictory evidence.)
The arguments here are utterly nonsensical! Intelligent Design is premised on the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE for autonomous actions to occur without intelligence as their basis. Quantum Mechanics IN NO WAY rules out intelligence! In fact it is a signature of intelligence! Action and Order may CONTINUE without intelligence. But NEITHER can ARISE without it.
“Intelligent Design” obviously means design occasioned/caused by intelligence. Can ANYTHING ELSE other than intelligence produce design – OF ANY SORT? Is ANYTHING ELSE capable of acting autonomously – not merely reacting – which design absolutely requires, other than intelligence?
The laws of inertia and entropy ABSOLUTELY rule out matter as a possible source for design. This lies in the very DEFINITION of matter!
Claiming that things can JUST HAPPEN – FOR NO REASON – is utterly unscientific! Even LUNATIC! Tantamount to believing in MAGIC! The whole point of science is to determine CAUSAL relationships which support the coming into being of EVENTS – which would be IMPOSSIBLE without such relationships. Implicit in this is the realisation that there MUST be an Ultimate Cause Which, not being preceded by ANYTHING ELSE, is actually the Ultimate Reality of Existence – and therefore CANNOT be a product or effect of ANYTHING ELSE! Why is this clear and simple line of reasoning not obvious to atheists – if they’re not benighted dunces? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Quantum mechanical events are – IN PRINCIPLE – not just apparently – spontaneous. ONLY intelligence is capable of producing such events. ONLY intelligence has the capacity to follow one of several alternative paths available to it. NOTHING ELSE! Inert matter is BY DEFINITION utterly incapable of making choices. Is this not so?
Conceptually, quantum mechanics is a very hard thing to get your head around.
it’s a mathematical model of reality, but the idea that a particle can be in two states or two places at once is pretty hard to grasp.
There was a popular film that explored some of these ideas. I can’t remember its name, was a long rambling name, but the film didn’t discount the idea of an overarching intelligence.
There is NOTHING difficult about quantum mechanics – providing you have no difficulty with the idea of free will. If you reject the existence of free will, quantum mechanics is utterly INCOMPREHENSIBLE! Spontaneous events are IMPOSSIBLE where only inert matter exists! That is the simple truth! All other arguments about this, such as – “quantum mechanics is hard to understand” etc. – are just dishonest attempts to avoid facing this truth.
All one has to do – as is done EVERYWHERE ELSE in science – is to assume the correctness of a hypothesis and then see if it predicts correct results or not. If one assumes that quantum mechanical events are expressions of intelligent activity then they ALL become EASILY explicable. Why just in this case alone is this time-honoured fundamentlal procedure in science rejected by some scientists with an atheistic agenda? Obviously, because it destroys their entire worldview. Hahahahahahahahahahaah!
“The Original 108 minute film – released in theaters in February 2004. Starring Marlee Matlin and 14 Scientists and Mystics. Exploring the worlds of Quantum Physics, Neurology, and Molecular Biology in relation to the spheres of Spirituality, Metaphysics and Polish weddings. Part documentary, part drama, part animation, How does it all fit together???”
Well, it’s only a movie. A work of the imagination. I’m concerned with Reality – and that’s accessible ONLY via honesty and logic; NOT by letting the imagination run wild as, for instance, Darwinists do in their increasingly contorted attempts to save their doomed hypothesis about how design and intelligence appear from out of INERT matter. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I’m not surprised you atheist types can’t bear my laughter. It’s obviously because the scorn and mockery in it for Atheism and its ridiculous ideas is FULLY justified – and YOU KNOW IT! Otherwise you wouldn’t complain so much about it – as it wouldn’t bother you so much. Is this not so? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
It’s really funny when atheists accuse others of being mad – when they quite readily confess that they regard their consciousness and will – and even sense of self as ILLUSIONS! To cap it all, they reject the Principle of Causality! Yet they think others are mad? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I actually don’t expect LOGICAL responses from atheists to LOGICAL arguments. I’d be astounded if I should EVER witness one. Haahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I wasn’t trying to give a logical response. I was just remarking that appending a Hahahahahaha to the end of every post makes you sound a little, er, crazy
Personally, I don’t call myself an atheist because I don’t “know” there is no God.
“….I wasn’t trying to give a logical response. I was just remarking that appending a Hahahahahaha to the end of every post makes you sound a little, er, crazy
Personally, I don’t call myself an atheist because I don’t “know” there is no God….”
And why on earth do you think that laughing at something that’s laughable is “crazy”. What definition of “crazy” are you using – and from which dictionary? Or have you just made it up yourself?
Well, I’m glad to see you’re now too ashamed to publicly associate yourself with Atheism. That’s a good first step. But you will require very MANY others additionally.
What definition of “crazy” are you using – and from which dictionary? Or have you just made it up yourself?
Yes you are correct. I apologise. I was just trying to jest.
I should have used a standard form of crazy. I meant someone who puts
hahahahahhahahahahah
at the end of every post “sounds’ a little crazy. it doesn’t mean that you are “clinically” crazy.
We have higher standards here.
We use Primary Sources.
Take NASA for instance.
They are a “Prmary Source” of information.
if you wanted to find out about “crazy”, you’d probably go to a recognised body of Health Professionals.
If you wanted to find out about climate change, you’d go to NASA, or perhaps a recognised body of Health Professionals, as they also agree with NASA as does everyone else
So you can go everywhere and they all agree.
Except the deniers of course. They are bad.
And probably crazy too
“Intelligent Design” obviously means design occasioned/caused by intelligence.
Not very useful at all. Worthless in fact. Intelligent is intelligence and design is…design.
(shrug)
@Mick Personally, I don’t call myself an atheist because I don’t “know” there is no God….”
Then you are doing it wrong. I’ve never met or read anything by anybody claiming to be an atheist where they state that they “know” there is no god.
That’s like saying that you know there is no Bigfoot or that you know there is no Santa Claus.
The Dragon In My Garage
by
Carl Sagan
“A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage”
Suppose (I’m following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you’d want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
“Show me,” you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle–but no dragon.
“Where’s the dragon?” you ask.
“Oh, she’s right here,” I reply, waving vaguely. “I neglected to mention that she’s an invisible dragon.”
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon’s footprints.
“Good idea,” I say, “but this dragon floates in the air.”
Then you’ll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
“Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless.”
You’ll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
“Good idea, but she’s an incorporeal dragon and the paint won’t stick.”
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won’t work.
Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
The only thing you’ve really learned from my insistence that there’s a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You’d wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I’ve seriously underestimated human fallibility.
Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don’t outright reject the notion that there’s a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you’re prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it’s unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative– merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of “not proved.”
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons–to say nothing about invisible ones–you must now acknowledge that there’s something here, and that in a preliminary way it’s consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it’s not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you’re pretty sure don’t know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages–but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we’re disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I’d rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren’t myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they’re never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon’s fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such “evidence”–no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it–is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
Personally, I don’t call myself an atheist because I don’t “know” there is no God….”
Then you are doing it wrong. I’ve never met or read anything by anybody claiming to be an atheist where they state that they “know” there is no god.
That’s like saying that you know there is no Bigfoot or that you know there is no Santa Claus.
(a) You can test some string theories (the LHC is doing that actually)
(b) String theorists don’t want their ideas taught at highschool before their is any evidence for them!
“….Intelligent is intelligence and design is…design…..”
Wow! How very insightful! Hahhhahahahahahahaah! How much more we now know about intelligence and design after your brilliant exposition: “….Intelligent is intelligence and design is…design…..” Hahahahahahahahahaahah!
“….Then you are doing it wrong. I’ve never met or read anything by anybody claiming to be an atheist where they state that they “know” there is no god.
That’s like saying that you know there is no Bigfoot or that you know there is no Santa Claus….”
If you’re saying atheists DON’T KNOW whether or not God exists, then you MUST, if you wish to remain honest, declare that when Dawkins says that belief in God is a delusion he is doing so without any rational grounds. But you see, atheists NEVER agree to do that – and I don’t think you will either. Why? Because atheists have zero respect for truth – as they don’t believe it is anything more than a figment of their imagination which they can form as they wish anyway. Is this not so? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
Carl Sagan’s argument quoted here at length is utterly nonsensical and are easily disposed of.:
1. The inabilty of a person to observe something is not proof it does not exist. Such an approach would be solipsist. No one can show colours to a blind man – but does it follow from that that they do not exist?
2. Imagine a Carl Sagan in the Middle Ages, way before the time of radio being told by some advanced thinker about them and carrying out experiments with the tools of that time available to him. Of-course, he will end up declaring that since he cannot detect radio waves they do not exist. But would he be correct?
3. Carl Sagan was a pothead. His reasoning cannot therefore be relied upon – as we can also see from the foregoing.
All that sweat you poured out for nothing, eh? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
“….(a) You can test some string theories (the LHC is doing that actually)
(b) String theorists don’t want their ideas taught at highschool before their is any evidence for them!….”
But there is AMPLE evidence for the existence of the Universe and for the Principle of Causality which operates unfailingly in it. BOTH point UNAVOIDABLY to the Existence of an Unconditioned Ultimate Reality of the Universe – God(as defined in the dictionary) – Which MUST have brought ALL ELSE – which is Conditioned – into existence, if one wishes to respect logic. Is this not so?
To acknowledge one’s existence and thence that of the rest of the Universe and still claim that the declaration that Ultimate Reality – God – exists is not testable is the worst kind of absurdity possible. It is tantamount to denying ONE’S OWN EXISTENCE! But atheists have been known to do this also! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
It is NOT for string theorists to say whether their theories are taught or not – and at what level. If they publish those theories, they lose control of how they can be disseminated. All they can say is that their not sure of the validity of their theories – and then those disseminating them would also have the duty to include this in whatever they say about these theories.
Atheists simply can’t seem to be able to distinguish between education – which frees the mind by giving it information uncensored – and indoctrination which binds the mind by censoring the information it receives.
Atheists wish to rely EXCLUSIVELY on INDUCTIVE logic. That is the way of the solipsist and is thoroughly misguided. ONLY DEDUCTIVE logic, when properly applied, can actually lead RELIABLY to the truth. The mentally indolent revile deductive logic as it demands rigorous and vigorous exercise of the mind which they loathe. This is what is behind Atheism. It consists, IN THE FIRST PLACE, of people who are too lazy to think deeply and prefer to hold fast dumbly to existing ready-made traditions. From this, one can also deduce that MANY atheists are also to be found within organised religions as members – because dull affiliation to a religious organisation is, in effect, no different from out and out atheism.
How much more we now know about intelligence and design after your brilliant exposition
Now, now. No need to get upset.
I asked you what you meant when you say “Intelligent Design”.
You couldn’t give an answer except to repeat yourself.
“Intelligent Design” obviously means design occasioned/caused by intelligence.
Let me make it simpler for you to understand your problem.
What do you mean when you say “design occasioned/caused by intelligence”?
Try to avoid going around in circles this time.
Given it is Dawkins’ stated intention to “kill religion”, this running away from debates is not going to help his cause any is it? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Bwa is a time-honoured tradition that is used all to rarely these days.
Why I remember a time when any self-respecting religious person would drop a “Bwa” or two after every sentence, let alone every paragragh.
Then there’s ALLCAPS.
Personally, capitalizing single words at random just feel like a bit of a wimp out to me.
You have a Caps Lock. Use it!
“…Let me make it simpler for you to understand your problem.
What do you mean when you say “design occasioned/caused by intelligence”?…”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Would you like me to explain each letter of the words also? You asked for the explanation of the phrase “intelligent design”. I explained it in terms of the words that constitute it. My mistake was to assume you knew the meanings of the words “intelligent” and “design”. I do apologise for that error.
To make it as simple as possible, let me immediately state that the expression “intelligent design” is rather tautologous. It suggests that there is a kind of design that is unintelligent. THERE ISN’T! Contrary to what people like Dawkins claim, Darwinism is NOT an alternative way of explaining design – it is a crude mind-trick used to deceive the dull-witted. For does Darwinism not assume the existence of VARIATION which it refuses to assign an AUTHOR – not merely CONDUIT – to? Is Natural Selection not merely a PASSIVE filter – which can neither determine it’s own shape nor accomplish ANYTHING without this mysterious VARIATION preceding it? And what, pray, do you think this VARIATION is other than the work of WILL – which can only be the property of INTELLIGENCE? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Hahahahahahahahahahah! By “Intelligent Design” I mean the worldview that regards ALL design as the EXCLUSIVE work of intelligence Clear enough regards “chance” as a completely fictitious phenomenon that can only exist in undisciplined and ignorant minds. Clear enough now? Sheeeessh! These slow atheists! Hhahahahahahahahahahaha!
By the way, Behe uses somewhat different words to say essentially the same thing.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahah! I know this trick played by atheists: Just continually ask inane questions and try to keep the other side off balance. Well, it doesn’t work with me. If you can say PRECISELY what it is you don’t understand in what I’ve said then I’m happy to address that. But I’m NOT interested in trying to teach calculus to a monkey. If you can’t understand simple English language you have to look for a different teacher other than myself! Hahahahahahahahhahahahaha!
ust continually ask inane questions and try to keep the other side off balance. Well, it doesn’t work with me.
Well, you did bring up Intelligent Design in the first place.
I’m just asking you what you mean by it.
So far, all you have done is shuffle the words around.
You said something about a worldview.
Um, ok.
It’s that what Intelligent Design is? If so, what do you mean by that? What is this “Intelligent Design” worldview?
“Well, you did bring up Intelligent Design in the first place….”
The topic of this thread is “Intelligent design as a scientific idea”, I take it you didn’t notice that? Sheeeesh! These atheists! Hahahahahahahahahahahahah!
Presumably the author of this piece knew what he meant by “Intelligent Design”
Presumably so but I’d like to know what the “Hahahahahahahahahaha” guy meant when he said it.
“Intelligent Design is premised on the fact that it is…
(…)
“Intelligent Design” obviously means design occasioned/caused by intelligence.”
(…)
By “Intelligent Design” I mean the worldview that regards ALL design as the EXCLUSIVE work of intelligence.
I don’t think even he has any idea. That usual amongst ID supporters. It never amounts to anything more than a harmless buzzword.
If you’re incapable of putting the words “intelligent” and “design” together and discerning a meaning from the result then I’m afraid the intellectual gulf between us is too much for me to be able to teach you ANYTHING! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! I’m confident others are well able to understand what the phrase means though. Strange thing is, you’re clearly disagreeing with something that you profess not to understand – very similar to your disbelief of God, isn’t it? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Hahahahahahahahahahaah! “Intelligent Design” conveys NOTHING to you and you think you know enough English to be able to hold a conversation about cosmology in English? Hahahahahahahaahahahahaha!
Anyway, WHAT exactly is it about Intelligent Design that you disagree with and WHY? ANY LOGICAL reasons – or NOT? Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
As I have said elsewhere, I don’t think you have any any idea. That usual amongst ID supporters. It never amounts to anything more than a harmless buzzword.
(shrug)
“As I have said elsewhere, I don’t think you have any any idea. That usual amongst ID supporters. It never amounts to anything more than a harmless buzzword….”
Intelligent design (ID) often gets rejected out of hand as just not science. However, I think that is a bit harsh. I think we should accept that ID is at least a scientific idea.
Open Parachute 
Hello serious thinkers,
Science cannot deny that the universe is intelligently designed. What stands in the way is the lack of an intelligent first causal principle. Quantum theory describes fundamental reality as consisting in irreducible chance. So intelligence plays no part in such an interpretation of the microworld.
Thankfully, there are a couple of flies in the ointment of our understanding of quantum theory. No one knows if the Schrodinger equation or complex vectors in Hilbert space describe what is really going on in the microworld (although it does provide an effective mathematical tool to describe a superposition of states). The Schrodinger equation also does not tell us how probabilities make a discontinuous (discrete) jump into a specific outcome (collapse of the wavepacket).
Another fly in the ointment is our inability to unify Einstein’s general relativity theory with quantum theory.
Intelligent design would gain scientific respect if the potentials or “tendencies to exist” in the quantum vacuum somehow actually COOPERATED to bring about a preferred direction and specific outcome. This would also mean that nature’s incessant drive towards complexity and self-organization had its principle of determination in the microworld of intelligently actualizing possibilities.
These are some of the issues that I will be addressing in my next book project, “Proving God.” I believe, like Roger Penrose, that complex curvatures (non-linear principles of superposition) are the key to a correct theory of quantum gravity and understanding how gravitational systems generate structure throughout the universe.
I ultimately plan to show that this universal organizing principle has its origins in the nonmaterial and unifying dynamics of spiritual love.
Spiritually yours,
TheGodGuy
LikeLike
GoodGuy spins castles in the air based upon possible unknown of quantum theory. A century ago, cranks did the same thing with electromagnetism.
“Intelligent design would gain scientific respect if the potentials or “tendencies to exist” in the quantum vacuum somehow actually COOPERATED to bring about a preferred direction and specific outcome.”
Do you have any evidence at all for this hypothesis? Anything besides a mere wish on your part that it might possibly be true? One way you can tell the difference between a religious motivation for a hypothesis and a scientific motivation is that the scientific proponent gets up off his keister and actually proposes some research to test whether it might be supported by any evidence, or consistent with other facts. The others merely engage in woo.
LikeLike
Edward Sylvia, I would say that ‘proving god’ is a mugs game – and certainly not required.
After all – we know that gods exist – in the minds and cultures of (some) humans. That’s something we can investigate and come to grips with.
But attempting to ‘prove’ gods as objectively existing entities is surely just an exercise in cherry-picking evidence to justify a preconceived belief.
It seems that the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics provides a very useful mystical ‘explanation’ for all sorts of weird ideas.
LikeLike
Why can’t it be that Evolution was the way God created the human species?
LikeLike
No fear, Gasdocpol! Many people believe just that.
LikeLike
Well put, however your cartoon seems to suggest just the opposite of what you wrote.
LikeLike
Yes, Gasdocpol, many (if not most) theists accept that. Obviously there are others who can’t accept that because it requires a god assumption.
However, the problem arises not from belief in a god, or a god which underlies everything (the ultimate cause). The problem is the claim that “God did it” as an explanation.
Surely the theist scientists can’t accept that – she has to ask – “Yes, but how did God do it?” In that sense they are doing exactly the same thing as the non-theist scientist that they work with.
LikeLike
Enjoyed this post.
I agree that ID is too often rejected without even a sliver of consideration, however this is partly due to the harsh ID only belief. At least science leaves itself open (most of the time) to being disproved.
LikeLike
leftoverkumquats: Quite literally, if there is no evidence, there is nothing to consider. Might be the reason its usually dismissed out of hand by many: no evidence, nothing for them to consider. Just food for thought.
LikeLike
Heraclides: And yet millions of people turn to religion with no evidence that the God they devote their lives to exists. Why are these millions so willing not only to consider but to commit to religion?
LikeLike
Pointless comparison, or rather not even comparable.
The first post (9, mine) refers to something being compared with existing science. Evidence required.
The second (10, yours) refers to religion. Only “faith” required. (What you want to call faith: personally I call it gulliblity 🙂 Sometimes it seems a case of “needyness” winning over commonsense.)
Point is, these two aren’t comparable: your “point” in post 10 is moot.
(You might also want to note that religion doesn’t require you to compare the religion’s view on things with existing knowledge, as science does. If anything, religions can ask people to “forget” contradictory evidence.)
LikeLike
The arguments here are utterly nonsensical! Intelligent Design is premised on the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE for autonomous actions to occur without intelligence as their basis. Quantum Mechanics IN NO WAY rules out intelligence! In fact it is a signature of intelligence! Action and Order may CONTINUE without intelligence. But NEITHER can ARISE without it.
LikeLike
What do you mean when you say “Intelligent Design”?
LikeLike
“Intelligent Design” obviously means design occasioned/caused by intelligence. Can ANYTHING ELSE other than intelligence produce design – OF ANY SORT? Is ANYTHING ELSE capable of acting autonomously – not merely reacting – which design absolutely requires, other than intelligence?
The laws of inertia and entropy ABSOLUTELY rule out matter as a possible source for design. This lies in the very DEFINITION of matter!
LikeLike
Claiming that things can JUST HAPPEN – FOR NO REASON – is utterly unscientific! Even LUNATIC! Tantamount to believing in MAGIC! The whole point of science is to determine CAUSAL relationships which support the coming into being of EVENTS – which would be IMPOSSIBLE without such relationships. Implicit in this is the realisation that there MUST be an Ultimate Cause Which, not being preceded by ANYTHING ELSE, is actually the Ultimate Reality of Existence – and therefore CANNOT be a product or effect of ANYTHING ELSE! Why is this clear and simple line of reasoning not obvious to atheists – if they’re not benighted dunces? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
LikeLike
@zakiaminu – How is quantum mechanics a signature of intelligence?
LikeLike
Quantum mechanical events are – IN PRINCIPLE – not just apparently – spontaneous. ONLY intelligence is capable of producing such events. ONLY intelligence has the capacity to follow one of several alternative paths available to it. NOTHING ELSE! Inert matter is BY DEFINITION utterly incapable of making choices. Is this not so?
LikeLike
Conceptually, quantum mechanics is a very hard thing to get your head around.
it’s a mathematical model of reality, but the idea that a particle can be in two states or two places at once is pretty hard to grasp.
There was a popular film that explored some of these ideas. I can’t remember its name, was a long rambling name, but the film didn’t discount the idea of an overarching intelligence.
LikeLike
There is NOTHING difficult about quantum mechanics – providing you have no difficulty with the idea of free will. If you reject the existence of free will, quantum mechanics is utterly INCOMPREHENSIBLE! Spontaneous events are IMPOSSIBLE where only inert matter exists! That is the simple truth! All other arguments about this, such as – “quantum mechanics is hard to understand” etc. – are just dishonest attempts to avoid facing this truth.
All one has to do – as is done EVERYWHERE ELSE in science – is to assume the correctness of a hypothesis and then see if it predicts correct results or not. If one assumes that quantum mechanical events are expressions of intelligent activity then they ALL become EASILY explicable. Why just in this case alone is this time-honoured fundamentlal procedure in science rejected by some scientists with an atheistic agenda? Obviously, because it destroys their entire worldview. Hahahahahahahahahahaah!
LikeLike
The movie I was thinking of is called “What the bleep do we know”
http://www.whatthebleep.com/
“The Original 108 minute film – released in theaters in February 2004. Starring Marlee Matlin and 14 Scientists and Mystics. Exploring the worlds of Quantum Physics, Neurology, and Molecular Biology in relation to the spheres of Spirituality, Metaphysics and Polish weddings. Part documentary, part drama, part animation, How does it all fit together???”
LikeLike
Well, it’s only a movie. A work of the imagination. I’m concerned with Reality – and that’s accessible ONLY via honesty and logic; NOT by letting the imagination run wild as, for instance, Darwinists do in their increasingly contorted attempts to save their doomed hypothesis about how design and intelligence appear from out of INERT matter. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
LikeLike
zakiaminu – Maybe leave the Dr Evil impersonations out?
LikeLike
Good luck with this one Mick, I suspect some orderly left a gate open.
LikeLike
I’m not surprised you atheist types can’t bear my laughter. It’s obviously because the scorn and mockery in it for Atheism and its ridiculous ideas is FULLY justified – and YOU KNOW IT! Otherwise you wouldn’t complain so much about it – as it wouldn’t bother you so much. Is this not so? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
LikeLike
It’s really funny when atheists accuse others of being mad – when they quite readily confess that they regard their consciousness and will – and even sense of self as ILLUSIONS! To cap it all, they reject the Principle of Causality! Yet they think others are mad? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
LikeLike
LikeLike
I actually don’t expect LOGICAL responses from atheists to LOGICAL arguments. I’d be astounded if I should EVER witness one. Haahahahahahahahahahahaha!
LikeLike
I wasn’t trying to give a logical response. I was just remarking that appending a Hahahahahaha to the end of every post makes you sound a little, er, crazy
Personally, I don’t call myself an atheist because I don’t “know” there is no God.
I’ve got other things to worry about.
LikeLike
Richard says “Good luck with this one Mick, I suspect some orderly left a gate open.”
Probably correct.
Anyway I enjoy the laughs – adds just the right effect.
LikeLike
“….I wasn’t trying to give a logical response. I was just remarking that appending a Hahahahahaha to the end of every post makes you sound a little, er, crazy
Personally, I don’t call myself an atheist because I don’t “know” there is no God….”
And why on earth do you think that laughing at something that’s laughable is “crazy”. What definition of “crazy” are you using – and from which dictionary? Or have you just made it up yourself?
Well, I’m glad to see you’re now too ashamed to publicly associate yourself with Atheism. That’s a good first step. But you will require very MANY others additionally.
LikeLike
“….Probably correct.
Anyway I enjoy the laughs – adds just the right effect…..”
Good! So you’ll be advising your fellow atheists to stop whining about it then, eh? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
LikeLike
What definition of “crazy” are you using – and from which dictionary? Or have you just made it up yourself?
Yes you are correct. I apologise. I was just trying to jest.
I should have used a standard form of crazy. I meant someone who puts
hahahahahhahahahahah
at the end of every post “sounds’ a little crazy. it doesn’t mean that you are “clinically” crazy.
We have higher standards here.
We use Primary Sources.
Take NASA for instance.
They are a “Prmary Source” of information.
if you wanted to find out about “crazy”, you’d probably go to a recognised body of Health Professionals.
If you wanted to find out about climate change, you’d go to NASA, or perhaps a recognised body of Health Professionals, as they also agree with NASA as does everyone else
So you can go everywhere and they all agree.
Except the deniers of course. They are bad.
And probably crazy too
Hahahahahhahahahahah
LikeLike
Hahahahahahaahahahaha! Here are the definitions of “crazy” from Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary:
Definition of CRAZY
1 a : full of cracks or flaws : unsound b : crooked, askew
2 a : mad, insane b (1) : impractical (2) : erratic c : being out of the ordinary : unusual
3 a : distracted with desire or excitement b : absurdly fond : infatuated c : passionately preoccupied : obsessed
— cra·zi·ly adverb
— cra·zi·ness noun
— like crazy
: to an extreme degree
See crazy defined for English-language learners »
Now which one are you referring to? Do YOU know – NOT? Hahahahahahahahahaha!
LikeLike
Excellent! The Merriam-Webster dictionary.
A “Primary Source” of information.
I would probably use
3 a : distracted with desire or excitement
in your case as I can see that you are passionate about your subject, and are capable of using “Primary Sources”.
This is a good sign.
Hahahhahaha
LikeLike
“Intelligent Design” obviously means design occasioned/caused by intelligence.
Not very useful at all. Worthless in fact. Intelligent is intelligence and design is…design.
(shrug)
@Mick
Personally, I don’t call myself an atheist because I don’t “know” there is no God….”
Then you are doing it wrong. I’ve never met or read anything by anybody claiming to be an atheist where they state that they “know” there is no god.
That’s like saying that you know there is no Bigfoot or that you know there is no Santa Claus.
The Dragon In My Garage
by
Carl Sagan
“A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage”
Suppose (I’m following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you’d want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
“Show me,” you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle–but no dragon.
“Where’s the dragon?” you ask.
“Oh, she’s right here,” I reply, waving vaguely. “I neglected to mention that she’s an invisible dragon.”
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon’s footprints.
“Good idea,” I say, “but this dragon floates in the air.”
Then you’ll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
“Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless.”
You’ll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
“Good idea, but she’s an incorporeal dragon and the paint won’t stick.”
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won’t work.
Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
The only thing you’ve really learned from my insistence that there’s a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You’d wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I’ve seriously underestimated human fallibility.
Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don’t outright reject the notion that there’s a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you’re prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it’s unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative– merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of “not proved.”
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons–to say nothing about invisible ones–you must now acknowledge that there’s something here, and that in a preliminary way it’s consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it’s not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you’re pretty sure don’t know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages–but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we’re disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I’d rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren’t myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they’re never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon’s fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such “evidence”–no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it–is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
LikeLike
Two words –
String Theory
LikeLike
Yes, “String Theory” are two words.
(…insert slow hand clap here…)
Did you have a point to make or what?
Personally, I don’t call myself an atheist because I don’t “know” there is no God….”
Then you are doing it wrong. I’ve never met or read anything by anybody claiming to be an atheist where they state that they “know” there is no god.
That’s like saying that you know there is no Bigfoot or that you know there is no Santa Claus.
LikeLike
Yes, “String Theory” are two words.
(…insert slow hand clap here…)
Always ties them in knots!!
(tears roll down eyes at lame joke)
hahahhahah!
LikeLike
Theproblem is Mick
(a) You can test some string theories (the LHC is doing that actually)
(b) String theorists don’t want their ideas taught at highschool before their is any evidence for them!
LikeLike
The problem is Mick
I resent that!
LikeLike
(b) String theorists don’t want their ideas taught at highschool before their is any evidence for them!
hello? When did High Schools teach Quantum Physics, never mind String Theory?
Not to mention General Relativity. It’s not exactly high school material is it?
Unless you are a super-genius of course.
LikeLike
“….Intelligent is intelligence and design is…design…..”
Wow! How very insightful! Hahhhahahahahahahaah! How much more we now know about intelligence and design after your brilliant exposition: “….Intelligent is intelligence and design is…design…..” Hahahahahahahahahaahah!
LikeLike
“….Then you are doing it wrong. I’ve never met or read anything by anybody claiming to be an atheist where they state that they “know” there is no god.
That’s like saying that you know there is no Bigfoot or that you know there is no Santa Claus….”
If you’re saying atheists DON’T KNOW whether or not God exists, then you MUST, if you wish to remain honest, declare that when Dawkins says that belief in God is a delusion he is doing so without any rational grounds. But you see, atheists NEVER agree to do that – and I don’t think you will either. Why? Because atheists have zero respect for truth – as they don’t believe it is anything more than a figment of their imagination which they can form as they wish anyway. Is this not so? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
LikeLike
Carl Sagan’s argument quoted here at length is utterly nonsensical and are easily disposed of.:
1. The inabilty of a person to observe something is not proof it does not exist. Such an approach would be solipsist. No one can show colours to a blind man – but does it follow from that that they do not exist?
2. Imagine a Carl Sagan in the Middle Ages, way before the time of radio being told by some advanced thinker about them and carrying out experiments with the tools of that time available to him. Of-course, he will end up declaring that since he cannot detect radio waves they do not exist. But would he be correct?
3. Carl Sagan was a pothead. His reasoning cannot therefore be relied upon – as we can also see from the foregoing.
All that sweat you poured out for nothing, eh? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
LikeLike
“….(a) You can test some string theories (the LHC is doing that actually)
(b) String theorists don’t want their ideas taught at highschool before their is any evidence for them!….”
But there is AMPLE evidence for the existence of the Universe and for the Principle of Causality which operates unfailingly in it. BOTH point UNAVOIDABLY to the Existence of an Unconditioned Ultimate Reality of the Universe – God(as defined in the dictionary) – Which MUST have brought ALL ELSE – which is Conditioned – into existence, if one wishes to respect logic. Is this not so?
To acknowledge one’s existence and thence that of the rest of the Universe and still claim that the declaration that Ultimate Reality – God – exists is not testable is the worst kind of absurdity possible. It is tantamount to denying ONE’S OWN EXISTENCE! But atheists have been known to do this also! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
LikeLike
It is NOT for string theorists to say whether their theories are taught or not – and at what level. If they publish those theories, they lose control of how they can be disseminated. All they can say is that their not sure of the validity of their theories – and then those disseminating them would also have the duty to include this in whatever they say about these theories.
Atheists simply can’t seem to be able to distinguish between education – which frees the mind by giving it information uncensored – and indoctrination which binds the mind by censoring the information it receives.
LikeLike
Atheists wish to rely EXCLUSIVELY on INDUCTIVE logic. That is the way of the solipsist and is thoroughly misguided. ONLY DEDUCTIVE logic, when properly applied, can actually lead RELIABLY to the truth. The mentally indolent revile deductive logic as it demands rigorous and vigorous exercise of the mind which they loathe. This is what is behind Atheism. It consists, IN THE FIRST PLACE, of people who are too lazy to think deeply and prefer to hold fast dumbly to existing ready-made traditions. From this, one can also deduce that MANY atheists are also to be found within organised religions as members – because dull affiliation to a religious organisation is, in effect, no different from out and out atheism.
LikeLike
How much more we now know about intelligence and design after your brilliant exposition
Now, now. No need to get upset.
I asked you what you meant when you say “Intelligent Design”.
You couldn’t give an answer except to repeat yourself.
“Intelligent Design” obviously means design occasioned/caused by intelligence.
Let me make it simpler for you to understand your problem.
What do you mean when you say “design occasioned/caused by intelligence”?
Try to avoid going around in circles this time.
LikeLike
zakiaminu, I think you should try Bwahahahahahaha! Rather than just Hahahahahahaha! The “Bwa”, gives it that extra bit of zing.
LikeLike
Given it is Dawkins’ stated intention to “kill religion”, this running away from debates is not going to help his cause any is it? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
LikeLike
“…zakiaminu, I think you should try Bwahahahahahaha! Rather than just Hahahahahahaha! The “Bwa”, gives it that extra bit of zing.”
I’ll take that under advisement! Hhahahahahahahahahaha!
LikeLike
Bwa is a time-honoured tradition that is used all to rarely these days.
Why I remember a time when any self-respecting religious person would drop a “Bwa” or two after every sentence, let alone every paragragh.
Then there’s ALLCAPS.
Personally, capitalizing single words at random just feel like a bit of a wimp out to me.
You have a Caps Lock. Use it!
LikeLike
But in any case, let’s get to the good stuff.
What do you mean when you say “Intelligent Design”?
LikeLike
“…Let me make it simpler for you to understand your problem.
What do you mean when you say “design occasioned/caused by intelligence”?…”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Would you like me to explain each letter of the words also? You asked for the explanation of the phrase “intelligent design”. I explained it in terms of the words that constitute it. My mistake was to assume you knew the meanings of the words “intelligent” and “design”. I do apologise for that error.
To make it as simple as possible, let me immediately state that the expression “intelligent design” is rather tautologous. It suggests that there is a kind of design that is unintelligent. THERE ISN’T! Contrary to what people like Dawkins claim, Darwinism is NOT an alternative way of explaining design – it is a crude mind-trick used to deceive the dull-witted. For does Darwinism not assume the existence of VARIATION which it refuses to assign an AUTHOR – not merely CONDUIT – to? Is Natural Selection not merely a PASSIVE filter – which can neither determine it’s own shape nor accomplish ANYTHING without this mysterious VARIATION preceding it? And what, pray, do you think this VARIATION is other than the work of WILL – which can only be the property of INTELLIGENCE? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
LikeLike
You asked for the explanation of the phrase “intelligent design”. I explained it in terms of the words that constitute it.
Yes, that’s your problem.
You didn’t say anything. You just shuffled the words around.
To make it as simple as possible, let me immediately state that the expression “intelligent design” is rather tautologous. It suggests that…
That’s great but I’d rather know what you meant when you said “Intelligent Design”.
Contrary to what people like Dawkins claim, Darwinism is NOT….
I hear you, daddy-o. Yet perhaps we can discuss other stuff at some other time.
What do you mean when you say “Intelligent Design”?
For does Darwinism not assume(…)Is Natural Selection not(…)And what, pray, do you think this VARIATION…
Darwinism and natural selection and variation are all fine and wonderful.
But…
What do you mean when you say “Intelligent Design”? Can you define it?
LikeLike
Hahahahahahahahahahah! By “Intelligent Design” I mean the worldview that regards ALL design as the EXCLUSIVE work of intelligence Clear enough regards “chance” as a completely fictitious phenomenon that can only exist in undisciplined and ignorant minds. Clear enough now? Sheeeessh! These slow atheists! Hhahahahahahahahahahaha!
By the way, Behe uses somewhat different words to say essentially the same thing.
LikeLike
By “Intelligent Design” I mean the worldview that regards ALL design as the EXCLUSIVE work of intelligence
It’s a worldview? Now that is interesting.
ALL design as the EXCLUSIVE work of intelligence
So that’s “intelligent design”? Umm, well, you see…
All you have done is just shuffle the words around. Again.
“design occasioned/caused by intelligence”
Yep. There’s not much to go on at all. Could you give an actual working definition?
LikeLike
Hahahahahahahahahahahahah! I know this trick played by atheists: Just continually ask inane questions and try to keep the other side off balance. Well, it doesn’t work with me. If you can say PRECISELY what it is you don’t understand in what I’ve said then I’m happy to address that. But I’m NOT interested in trying to teach calculus to a monkey. If you can’t understand simple English language you have to look for a different teacher other than myself! Hahahahahahahahhahahahaha!
LikeLike
“Working definition” indeed! What does that even mean? ANYTHING AT ALL – or bugger all? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
LikeLike
ust continually ask inane questions and try to keep the other side off balance. Well, it doesn’t work with me.
Well, you did bring up Intelligent Design in the first place.
I’m just asking you what you mean by it.
So far, all you have done is shuffle the words around.
You said something about a worldview.
Um, ok.
It’s that what Intelligent Design is? If so, what do you mean by that? What is this “Intelligent Design” worldview?
LikeLike
“Well, you did bring up Intelligent Design in the first place….”
The topic of this thread is “Intelligent design as a scientific idea”, I take it you didn’t notice that? Sheeeesh! These atheists! Hahahahahahahahahahahahah!
LikeLike
The topic of this thread is “Intelligent design as a scientific idea”, I take it you didn’t notice that?
Yes but you did say “Intelligent Design”. What did you mean when you said “Intelligent Design”?
LikeLike
“Yes but you did say “Intelligent Design”. What did you mean when you said “Intelligent Design”?”
Oh brother! Another brain frozen atheist! Hahahahahahahahhahahahaha!
LikeLike
Presumably the author of this piece knew what he meant by “Intelligent Design”
Why don’t you ask him?
LikeLike
Presumably the author of this piece knew what he meant by “Intelligent Design”
Presumably so but I’d like to know what the “Hahahahahahahahahaha” guy meant when he said it.
“Intelligent Design is premised on the fact that it is…
(…)
“Intelligent Design” obviously means design occasioned/caused by intelligence.”
(…)
By “Intelligent Design” I mean the worldview that regards ALL design as the EXCLUSIVE work of intelligence.
I don’t think even he has any idea. That usual amongst ID supporters. It never amounts to anything more than a harmless buzzword.
LikeLike
If you’re incapable of putting the words “intelligent” and “design” together and discerning a meaning from the result then I’m afraid the intellectual gulf between us is too much for me to be able to teach you ANYTHING! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! I’m confident others are well able to understand what the phrase means though. Strange thing is, you’re clearly disagreeing with something that you profess not to understand – very similar to your disbelief of God, isn’t it? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
LikeLike
If you’re incapable of putting the words “intelligent” and “design” together and discerning a meaning from the result…
Well, it’s just a meaningless buzzword. You don’t seem to understand it yourself.
LikeLike
Hahahahahahahahahahaah! “Intelligent Design” conveys NOTHING to you and you think you know enough English to be able to hold a conversation about cosmology in English? Hahahahahahahaahahahahaha!
Anyway, WHAT exactly is it about Intelligent Design that you disagree with and WHY? ANY LOGICAL reasons – or NOT? Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
LikeLike
…you think you know enough English to be able to hold a conversation about cosmology in English?
I would not dream of making such a bold claim.
Anyway, WHAT exactly is it about Intelligent Design that you disagree with and WHY?
Until you reveal what Intelligent Design is about then there’s not much to disagree with. Hard to disagree with a meaningless buzzword.
(shrug)
LikeLike
“…I would not dream of making such a bold claim.”
My point exactly: You’re evidently out of your depth here. Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
“….Until you reveal what Intelligent Design is about then there’s not much to disagree with. Hard to disagree with a meaningless buzzword.
(shrug)”
Well I’m quite happy to see that you recognise that the matter is quite beyond you and freely choose to leave it alone! Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
LikeLike
My point exactly: You’re evidently out of your depth here.
I’m also out of my depth in Old Slavonic and my coopering skills are hardly worth mentioning.
(shrug)
Well I’m quite happy to see that you recognise that the matter is quite beyond you and freely choose to leave it alone!
Yes but your problem is that you did not leave it alone and the matter hopefully is not beyond you so…share.
Anyway, WHAT exactly is it about Intelligent Design that you disagree with and WHY?
Fine. What do you mean when you say Intelligent Design?
LikeLike
As I’ve said elsewhere, clearly I’ll have to leave you to your mantra chanting delirium. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
LikeLike
As I have said elsewhere, I don’t think you have any any idea. That usual amongst ID supporters. It never amounts to anything more than a harmless buzzword.
(shrug)
LikeLike
“As I have said elsewhere, I don’t think you have any any idea. That usual amongst ID supporters. It never amounts to anything more than a harmless buzzword….”
What rubbish!
LikeLike
What rubbish!
Um, you forgot the “Hahahahahahahahha” thing again.
LikeLike