It may not be science but it deserves consideration. What is intelligence? is it as we know it or could it have an alien concept? Intelligence infers a human like creature with a similar conscious ability as ours with all the moral baggage we carry about describing our species. The pig has intelligence but it has no concept of our human ability.

What is design ? We describe natures ability but we do not accept it's determination other than in scientific terms. Is it chance or is it determined by a sequence of events that would always secure the same outcome. Are we determined or by varying the conditions would we never exist or be change beyond recognition. When was the formula for life able to perform? A concept such as a formula can exist before the circumstances allow it to operate. With this in mind we had to be determined even before the universe existed or we have to examine the alternative. The only other alternative is chance, a series of random events unrelated to the previous random event eventually by chance creating basic life. A life very basic but capable of evolution. Capable from simple origins into the most complex creatures nature can engineer. So the argument as always ends with two choices, in my opinion. Chance or determined? It may or not be god the determiner or god the provider of magical chance but both gods are feasible and impossible.

Keen wrote:I never said it does not deserve consideration. What I simply dislike is when people want this theory to be taught in biology classes as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. That is completely wrong, since it is not science. I however think it should be taught in history or philosophy lessons, because I think people should know about it just like about religion or major philosophies that shaped human culture and thinking.

If it is taught with religious significance then it has no value but if it is represented as an alternative scientific theory then it has to be introduced into the science class. Many scientific theories are based on speculative scientific thinking rather than hard observable experiments. If the BB with all it's problems can be displayed as a certainty then I'm sure an alternative to the random chance universe should be mentioned. Evolution does not deny engineering it just observes the sequence of events that nature has taken. It is a scientific debate with credible evidence to support it's point of view.

Belinda wrote:Intelligent design thesis should not be taught in schools at all. The reason it should not be taught, and should be dismissed out of hand if the subject is mentioned, is that intelligent design thesis is a deliberate fabrication to fool people into thinking that maybe creationism is true. Young people of school age are generally not able to evaluate the arguments that falsify the sophisticated lie which is intelligent design, therefore they should be protected from the lie until they are older and, hopefully, wiser,.

Creationism is a modern excrescence which pretends to be science. The old time Bible literalist did not pretend that The Bible was science but accepted what was in The Bible as good and true without feeling any need to justify it as science.

Belida science has proposed an alternative to chance. The dispute is about the evidence not the concept. Just ignoring the question will not make it disappear. Education of biblical creationalism is not the same as evidence of engineering.

Belinda wrote:Xris wrote:

The dispute is about the evidence not the concept. Just ignoring the question will not make it disappear. Education of biblical creationalism is not the same as evidence of engineering.

There is not time in any school week with more important pressures on curriculum planning to give the time necessary to try to explain to children why intelligent design is wrong; some secondary school kids cannot even convert pence into pounds.Would you try to explain to children why earthworms cannot recite Shakespeare when they are sorely needing to learn to read? If the topic of intelligent design is raised by a kid in school I certainly would not ignore the kid I would say that it is a lie, although it is such a clever lie that it is difficult to explain to a child why it's a lie, and I hope that the kid will study selective adaptation instead because selective adaptation is true.

'Education of biblical creationalism' does not merit a place in the curriculum. There is evidence of engineering all around us many kids are good at using highly engineered things. I do think that engineering merits a place in some curriculums and I hope that science teachers are conversant with engineering principles and that English teachers have a good enough knowledge of engineering terminology.

I am not suggesting it is placed in a curriculum to be learnt as a fact but when you see the book of the week on this very subject as being recommended, it is not without value. If you allow the BB to be taught as fact then do you consider it also counter productive in childs education? If any subject is allowed to be taught as a mere religious subject then the myths and dogma will continue to be held by those exposed to it from outside of the education system.

May be I am not making myself clear. If science finds evidence of fine tuning and it infers engineering it should academicaly lead to a debate about intelligent design. It is not about biblical certainties it's about scientific theories. If we educate the theory of the BB, with all it's contraversy, so to ,in my opinion, should the consequences of fine tuning be examined. You can not exclude a theory because there is insufficient term time or the teacher may use it to indoctrinate their students. Evidence of ancient flooding does not indictate the myth of Noah as historically correct.

Belinda wrote:Xris wrote:

You can not exclude a theory because there is insufficient term time or the teacher may use it to indoctrinate their students. Evidence of ancient flooding does not indictate the myth of Noah as historically correct.

It's not only because there is insufficient time to discuss intelligent design. Intelligent design studies would not only be time consuming but also give the thesis of intelligent design a dignity it does not merit.

Belinda I am not suggesting it be taught as a fact but as theory that needs scientific scrutiny. Pick up any book teaching students about the BB and it is presented as a fact. Something the religious use as a evidence of creation. Would you exclude the BB theory for the same reasoning? Just because I do not believe in the BB or you do not accept the evidence of an engineered universe, should we ignore the subject and exclude it from critical education? Students will encounter the questions from a biased perspective no matter if it is excluded from main stream education. I believe students are best served by scientific education not religious bigotry.

Belinda wrote:Xris wrote:

Belinda I am not suggesting it be taught as a fact but as theory that needs scientific scrutiny. Pick up any book teaching students about the BB and it is presented as a fact. Something the religious use as a evidence of creation. Would you exclude the BB theory for the same reasoning? Just because I do not believe in the BB or you do not accept the evidence of an engineered universe, should we ignore the subject and exclude it from critical education? Students will encounter the questions from a biased perspective no matter if it is excluded from main stream education. I believe students are best served by scientific education not religious bigotry.

Yes, but most young people still in school are still developing their critical ability. When the students are ready , certainly I think that they should all be taught how to assess scientific lies and scientific truths. I think universities are more appropriate than schools for consideration of pseudoscientific, political and religious lies. Universities serve supposedly independent thinkers, whereas schools serve relatively tender-minded children.

Some scientific lies and untruths, and some religious or metaphysical nonsense is expressed by persons with little or no credibility. But intelligent design is very cleverly expressed by well trained scientists who have concealed religious agendas.

Thats judging the subject before it has been heard. We all have agendas but it is only by open debate do we arrive at the truth. Certain children are educated out of the state education system to believe in the created universe. Would this not balance the argument and stop young minds from being exploited?

HexHammer wrote:There was a major lawsuit effectivly killing ID. The best argument ID could offer was irreduceable complexity, which easily was disproved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuM1WC52-no

I believe in evolution and that Darwin had it right but that does not indicate the lack of engineering. Approaching it from a dogmatic religous position or scientific certainty will not resolve the question.

Belinda wrote:But we do know. Natural selection is how living things evolve and survive long enough to reproduce their kind.

I thought we just observed the process Belinda.

HexHammer wrote:

Xris wrote:

HexHammer wrote:There was a major lawsuit effectivly killing ID. The best argument ID could offer was irreduceable complexity, which easily was disproved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuM1WC52-no

I believe in evolution and that Darwin had it right but that does not indicate the lack of engineering. Approaching it from a dogmatic religous position or scientific certainty will not resolve the question.

That has nothing to do with any science then, that is a make believe argument, which belongs to the fairy tale department.

Why has it got nothing to do with science? Your opposing my views from a dogmatic position and that is hardly scientific.

Teralek wrote:The universe is definitely fine tuned... now the question IS, how do you deal with it?
We are all biased in assumptions and beliefs

Why should it be an issue? No one can plant their beliefs in to facts simply because those facts exist.

Thinking critical wrote:Hi teralek, your speaking about the cosmological equivelent of evolution via natural selection. There was at one stage extreme simplicity, perhaps a type of universe which consisted of extremely basic elementary particles. Basicaly more complex systems gradualy emerged as universes collapsed an their reminance gave birth to slightly different ones. The stronger or more effective aspects of each universe were essential to the existence of the next gradually more diverse and complex (finer tuned) particles emerged until they reached a stage where the Universe was able to become self sustainable. The simple (yet mind boggingly complex in nature) principal of natural selection could possibly be all that is required to explain the inital cause of all life and the Universe itself. If we were to donate any purpose to the existence of the universe perhaps it is just that; existence by the most simple means possible.

Thinking, do you believe that it was just luck that formed the ability for life or could it have been determined by laws of nature? We are always making assumptions that are accepted and not ever confronted. "universes collapsed" " particles evolved" these are all concepts that used to argue from both perspectives. What if we had one steady state universe where particles have always existed and life is constantly emerging, when and if the opportunity occurs? The assumed expanding universe and the resulting BB colours all debates. It gives birth to scientific concepts that in turn breed philosophical conclusions. My one man crusade to eliminate these false concepts may make me a martyr but they need to be questioned.

Teralek wrote:Xris. If you are right then yes, I agree with you. I would probably believe that there was no First Cause to the Universe. And the Universe simply IS, WAS, and always WILL be. Don't think that the question would just magically disappear even in that case. Because one would forever wonder why is the Universe like this and not any other way...
But I don't agree with you.
Everything I know about science points the other way.

Critical whatever the theory you can't simply shove away a First Cause. It is impossible. Call it whatever you like: "extremely basic elementary particles" "Basicaly more complex systems gradualy emerged as universes collapsed"... whatever. If you don't want turtles all the way down (meaning the ultimate truth will never be known) there will be a FC.

I don't like the idea of infinite regress of causality it just makes no sense to me... in the cosmological sense

Why are you hung up on this idea that there had to be a first cause. We are creatures of time and we find it impossible to think out the box with a clock in it. Let me try an alternative way of thinking about time and this damned causal chain.

We have a circular train set where our little train constantly runs. Imagine the train is our moment in time and the path it takes are the events we observe. But instead of the events repeating themselves they change as we pass them never to be repeated but the passage of the train is maintained it keeps running around and around no begining no end. Where in that circuit would you say was the first event? Is it time or events that we are trying to find? Is the first turtle at the bottom or the top? Is your grandfather any more dead than you or I ?

If you follow any of my posts you will understand I believe in a determined universe and that nature determines life but we need to get our science absolutely immaculate before we speculate to the point of describing an engineer.

Wowbagger wrote:

Sam26 wrote:I also think it is correct to separate ID from creationism because the two arguments are very different, although some of the implications of ID are religious; and this scares some people.

This is completely true in theory, but practically it isn't really the case. It's a historical fact that the ID movement was started by creationists in order to push their anti-scientific agenda. I recommend the following documentary for those who are interested: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/ ... trial.html
I don't know any non-religous scientists who work on ID in biology. Panspermia is a different thing, but regarding biology, ID really is just religiously motivated. Look at the "Discovery Institute", their creationist agenda obviously shines through.

Wowbagger. The argument should be is it finely tuned and if it is what does it infer. Many scientists do accept fine tuning but science can not give a philosophical argument of why. One argument against fine tuning is chance, just pure luck that the laws happened to be convenient for life to emerge. In my opinion that requires just as much imagination and invention as fine tuning. If life was an act of magical creation you would not necessarily find subtle tuning nor find the laws of nature to be determined. The creationists never accept logic so why should evidence of fine tuning confirm or deny an engineer? God works miracles he does not sit a lab engineering the universe.

Thinking, the universe may not be expanding, just moving. The red shift observations have been questioned by eminent cosmologists but they have been ignored. The Big Bang has to much academic investment to be dismissed as a fraud.