Oh - and if my science is wrong - please let me know and I will correct myself.
Original discussion can be found here.
Oh and a good list of articles disproving the 'argument from design'.
Them:
As I understand it creationism holds a sect of thought that after Adam & Eve were kicked out of the garden of eden, evil took the form of dinasaurs... hehe, but Inteligent design is simply the idea that since we can't explain the origin of life on earth & according to all science there is no explaining its spontanious appearance (except crystal formations & lightning striking mud incalculably unlikely scenarios) some sentient greater force or beings caused it.
Just thought I'd bring to light the difference.
Of course evolution happened but an orderly universe only further proves God. This should only disturb biblical literalists who's silly assumptions as to the age of the world is based upon incomplete geneologies.
ME:
Actually, ID is simply Creationism dressed up and with the word 'God' removed. Literally. The ID Institute refused to go to court to defend the Intelligent Design Hypothesis, because documents had been found showing that they simply removed the word 'God' from what had formally been Creationist papers.
From this quote: crystal formations & lightning striking mud I'm guessing you've either seen the entire 'Expelled' or clips of it. (I've sat through the whole thing myself, it is the worst excuse for a documentary I have ever seen.)
Sorry, but the lightning-striking-mud thing is a complete fallacy and the only people ever to talk about it are Creationists, and usually in an Argument From Ridicule situtation. And Stein deliberately missunderstood and deliberately misrepresented the Crystals hypothesis (which is actually only one of many.) Look up Abiogenesis if you want to gain an understanding of the origins of life.
an orderly universe only further proves God - I'm sorry, but it doesn't. What it proves is that the fundamental laws that have been observed are working as they should.
Them:
As with any ideology it is defined differently by adherents/inquisitors, Stein defined it with the stark accurate simplicity necessary for non-theological discussion. Calling the belief that Adam & eve lived with dinosaurs THE SAME AS the Idea that there is a Creator of the Universe, is blind ignorance. There are supposedly confused dim wit creationists out there espousing the name ID, but backing it up with Creationism; Its like I calling myself Hindu & backing it up with the bible, the problem is your listening to these "Hindus" tell you about "Hinduism", the actual simple idea is not dressed up (when its actually it).
Biblical Literalists/Creatonists if they spoke to a theology expert of the proper stripe would find out their logic is flawed. Incomplete genealogies interpreted as complete is one example.
An orderly universe only further proves God, you disagree but lack any compelling argument on this point. Too often ppl condemn an idea without even understanding it, I've never been to church but developed belief through reason alone.
In my experience atheists are very unscientific, they solidify their disbelief as accurate & set out to discredit there being a God Because they CAN'T disprove it.
Einstein said The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible. & also the more he learned about the universe the more he saw God's hand in it.
The Origin of life, is only one of Many Miracles you've blinded yourself to & just because it Can be finitely explained doesn't mean its not a miracle.
ME:
As with any ideology it is defined differently by adherents/inquisitors,
I'm sorry, but no. ID postulates an 'Intelligent Designer' in place of 'God' - and that's pretty much it. An 'Intelligent Designer' that either
A: started absolutely everything and left it to it or
B: started everything and has been tinkering with it ever since.
And the biggest problem with this? 'Who designed the 'Designer'?' It's exactly the same problem with having a 'God' that created everything. The answer 'God is eternal' or 'the Designer is eternal' does not further our knowledge of.. well, ANYthing. It simply leads to more questions.
Stein defined it with the stark accurate simplicity necessary for non-theological discussion.
And then he proceeded to fill the 'documentary' with nothing but incredibly fellacious 'arguments', appeals to sympathy, straw-men and appeals to ridicule! There was no actual scientific discussion anywhere to be found in the entire thing. I own a copy of this documentary and have watched it at least twice - in no viewing did I see any actual real discussion going on. But again, the problem with his 'non-theological - accurate simplicity' is that there is NO non-theological evidence for ID. So the only arguemnts that carry any wieght for the idea, are theological. And we all know those are crap.
Calling the belief that Adam & eve lived with dinosaurs THE SAME AS the Idea that there is a Creator of the Universe, is blind ignorance.
And this has what to do with what? Nobody was talking about Adam and Eve and co-existence with dinosaurs. Though it must be pointed out that there are an awful lot of xtians out there who DO think Adam and Eve did just that.
There are supposedly confused dim wit creationists out there espousing the name ID, but backing it up with Creationism;
That's because it IS Creationism - they get it confused, because there is little to no difference. The idea itself was first *ahem* created, by a group of Creationists, specificaly to get around the red-tape involved when trying to teach Creationism in science classes. Pretty much all the 'authorative figures' that back the idea, are members or supporters of the Discovery Institute - a conservative christian organisation, that - funilly enough - BACKED OUT of defending ID in court.
Biblical Literalists/Creatonists if they spoke to a theology expert of the proper stripe would find out their logic is flawed.
What 'stripe'? Though I'm not disagreeing with you, there are plenty of theologians who accept evolution and understand that the Creationist/Id idea is a load of old hooey.
An orderly universe only further proves God,
Wrong.
you disagree but lack any compelling argument on this point.
No - wrong again - I simply didn't state my arguments. There is a difference.
Please keep in mind that I'm an Artist by trade, not a Scientist - but you appear to be labouring under the impression that if any of the 26 'dimensionless fundamental physical constants' were changed, then the universe would either no longer be 'fine tuned' for life or that it would be 'chaotic' - both of which then negating the theory of 'God', and that, because we are here, and the universe is not 'chaotic', this proves 'God'. Yes?
(I think this is called 'Subjective Anthopomorphism' and is basically 'God of the Gaps')
Well - unfortunately, that's kind of ass-backwards. The universe is not fine-tuned for life in any way shape or form - life is fine-tuned to the universe. The universe as a whole is a damned inhospitable place, it's cold for a start, as there's no atmosphere except on the few almost-spheres of gas or dirt that are floating around here and there.
When life started, it had to work with what was there, so over the billions of years life has been on this particular almost-sphere of dirt and water, it has addapted to what's here. We're carbon based, because it's predoinantly carbon here. We're water-based, because there's a lot of water. And so on. In another universe, perhaps life could have been silocon based. We'll never know, because we're the ones that are here, not them.
The problem with a 'fine-tuned' universe argument, is that it only talks about life as we know it - there is nothing to say that a different universe, with some of the constants changed, could not support it's own life. Indeed - a lot of the '26 constants' are such that they can be changed quite a lot, and there would be no effect on our universe anyway. In fact, changing the 'weak force' significantly, is shown to produce little to no change at all.
It is the way these constants interact that gives the illusion of order and design, but it simple. Certain forces have certain effects - and because of those effects, certain other effects are inevitable. Such as objects - even on the molecular scale - being attracted to one another. Eventually, given enough time (and the univers has had a lot of it) enough elements will come together in just the right way.
Watch the animated explanations available on this website to better understand what I'm talking about: A Trip Through The Big Bang (I KNOW it's about string theory and the big bang - but the basics are the same thing)
Too often ppl condemn an idea without even understanding it,
I'm sure they do - but unlike your assumption, I'm not one of them.
I've never been to church but developed belief through reason alone.
If it works for you, then *shrugs* though it seems like awfully flawed 'reason' to me.
In my experience atheists are very unscientific,
Really? In MY experience, atheists are very scientific. Every atheist I know either has a background in the sciences or is a hobbyist in the area, like myself. It also needs to be pointed out that in the sciences, the majority are atheist - only a very small proportion of real scientists are actually believers of some sort. In fact, the better educated a person is, the less likely they are to be religious.
they solidify their disbelief as accurate & set out to discredit there being a God Because they CAN'T disprove it.
Neh. You're one of those types. Hokay. Atheists are actually some of the most open-minded people around, but as we're all fond of miss-quoting 'our minds are open, just not so open that they risk falling out'.
And actually, you've completely missed the point of what it means to be an atheist. No athiest has 'solid' disbelief - we actually all know for a fact that, outside of mathematics, nothing can be 'proven'. So far, there hasn't been a single shred of evidence to PROVE any form of 'God' - and because the religious are the ones postulating an extraordinary being, they are the ones who need to provide the evidence. Which they haven't been able to do. Repeatedly. Add to that the fact that there are numerous different 'Gods', 'Goddesses' and 'Deities' out there - they'd also have to PROVE THEIR OWN VERSION of said 'God'. And again - no one has. Ever.
also the more he learned about the universe the more he saw God's hand in it.
Ah, the trusty quote mine. He also said:
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
The Origin of life, is only one of Many Miracles you've blinded yourself to & just because it Can be finitely explained doesn't mean its not a miracle.
I wonder - which definition do you use?
1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.
3. a wonder; marvel.
4. a wonderful or surpassing example of some quality: a miracle of modern acoustics.
I go with 3 and 4, personally. I find the conception, carryting to term and birth of a child miraculous - especially considering we are one of the least fertile creatures on the planet. I find the very idea of the universe as a whole to be miraculous. I find art miraculous. I find music, dance, laughter all miraculous. I love our planet and I love the mysteries the universe provides. I love to learn about it.
I find the idea of some 'God' or 'Deity' to be useless. I find it boring and devoid of wonder. I find it arrogant to assume that the universe was put here for our use. I find it arrogant to assume that we have mastery over everything.
I do not 'blind' myself to the true miracles of our world, our universe. I love them. What I 'blind' myself to are the man-made, anthropomorphic and rather arrogant reliougs beliefs. I find my life is not lacking for this disbelief.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment