Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free! If you are a member, please log in.

Intelligent Design

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

ape

  • Posts: 3323
    ( View: All / In topic )

  • Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Post Number:#76  PostMarch 19th, 2010, 2:03 pm

Kycatoe wrote:Im not not a skeptic or true believer in intelligent design. However I've read that the human body is roughly a unification of organisms(bacteria)working together to create life. Perhaps the question is better of being; "What are we?". Im not trying to get all science fiction here, but there have been meteorites found with living bacteria if im not mistaken ( it is pretty early and I havent slept, I quite possibly could have concocted all these "facts" in my own mind..lol). Anyway, Perhaps the ID is simply organisms "smart" enough to realize that by conglomerating they can create a superior lifeform. Perhaps these stated organism are of both terestial and extraterestial origin.

any thoughts?


Hi Kycatoe,

Your conclusions are or seem to be right:
both terrestrial --all life is based on the Terra of earth,
and extraterrestrial:
all life had to be created by someone from somewhere else.

I think you will like this:

"Is it possible that living cells somehow assembled themselves from nonliving things by chance? The probabilities here are so infinitesimal that they approach zero. Moreover, the earth has been around for some 4.5 billion years and the first traces of life have already been found at some 3.5 billion years ago. This is just what we have discovered: it's quite possible that life existed on earth even earlier. What this means is that, within the scope of evolutionary time, life appeared on earth very quickly after the earth itself was formed. Is it reasonable to posit that a chance combination of atoms and molecules, under those conditions, somehow generated a living thing? Could the random collision of molecules somehow produce a computer?

It is ridiculously implausible to think so. And the absurdity was recognized more than a decade ago by Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA double helix. Yet Crick is a committed atheist. Unwilling to consider the possibility of divine or supernatural creation, Crick suggested that maybe aliens brought life to earth from another planet. And this is precisely the suggestion that Richard Dawkins makes in his response to Ben Stein. Perhaps, he notes, life was delivered to our planet by highly-evolved aliens. Let's call this the "ET" explanation.

Stein brilliantly responds that he had no idea Richard Dawkins believes in intelligent design! And indeed Dawkins does seem to be saying that alien intelligence is responsible for life arriving on earth. What are we to make of this? Basically Dawkins is surrendering on the claim that evolution can account for the origins of life. It can't.
The issue now is simply whether a natural intelligence (ET) or a supernatural intelligence (God) created life. Dawkins can't bear the supernatural explanation and so he opts for ET.
But doesn't it take as much, or more, faith to believe in extraterrestrial biology majors depositing life on earth than it does to believe in a transcendent creator?"
Ben Stein Exposes Richard Dawkins
By Dinesh D'Souza
AOL News.com
April 18, 2008

Thanx.

Did you know?

  • Once you join the forums and log in you will get to enjoy an ad-reduced experience. It's easy and completely free!

Offline

boagie

  • Posts: 1023
    ( View: All / In topic )

  • Joined: October 13th, 2008, 7:50 am

Post Number:#77  PostMarch 21st, 2010, 4:31 am

"We are cousins to the trees, made of the same stuff, arrange into a different order." Carl Sagan

"You are made of star stuff." Carl Sagan

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
Carl Sagan

"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."
Carl Sagan
Nothing in the world in and of itself has meaning, but only in relation to a biological subject. Boagie
Offline

Belinda

Contributor

  • Posts: 9852
    ( View: All / In topic )

  • Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
  • Location: UK

Post Number:#78  PostMarch 21st, 2010, 7:57 am

Carl Sagan a truly religious man. What beautiful and true sayings by him related by boagie!
Socialist
Offline

ape

  • Posts: 3323
    ( View: All / In topic )

  • Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Post Number:#79  PostMarch 22nd, 2010, 5:08 pm

Thanx, Boagie!

CS also said:

'"The evidence so far at least and from the laws of nature aside, does not require a Designer. Maybe there is one *hiding,* maddeningly unwilling to be revealed"
Carl Sagan, 1994.

I responded in one of my letters by saying,
"Scientists have the greatest opportunity of all to see the evidence of God's marvelous provision for man in His creation. Yet, by and large, scientists today tend to be almost totally blinded [by their prejudice of Hatred] to the evidences [of Love]. Because of the kinship I feel toward you about the things of science, I request that you reconsider your relationship to God. Ask Him to reveal Himself to you. He is not hiding from you. Rather, He is waiting for you to see him."
Larry Vardiman, 1995.

Thanx.
Offline

boagie

  • Posts: 1023
    ( View: All / In topic )

  • Joined: October 13th, 2008, 7:50 am

Post Number:#80  PostMarch 22nd, 2010, 5:39 pm

Ape,

Why your evangelizing is permitted on the forum I really have no idea. To state that scientists are full of hate and prejudice is simply an outrageous statement, one again that should not be permitted on a site which is devoted to reason. Your permitted indulgences are one reason I believe that this site has more than it fair share of flakes. The quality of this site will never rise above what it is presently, as long as dogma has its place here.
Nothing in the world in and of itself has meaning, but only in relation to a biological subject. Boagie
Offline

Belinda

Contributor

  • Posts: 9852
    ( View: All / In topic )

  • Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
  • Location: UK

Post Number:#81  PostMarch 22nd, 2010, 7:20 pm

ape, this quotation you have about naughty scientists implies a queer sort of love that is not up to your usual standard as prophet of love. There are many paths of love. Why you exclude the scientists's paths is not at all clear.
Socialist
Offline

boagie

  • Posts: 1023
    ( View: All / In topic )

  • Joined: October 13th, 2008, 7:50 am

Post Number:#82  PostMarch 24th, 2010, 8:38 pm

Belinda,

I think Elvis has left the building--lol!!
Nothing in the world in and of itself has meaning, but only in relation to a biological subject. Boagie
Offline
User avatar

Abiathar

  • Posts: 245
    ( View: All / In topic )

  • Joined: April 29th, 2008, 5:32 pm
  • Location: Angkor Wat.

Post Number:#83  PostMarch 26th, 2010, 1:13 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_sequence

Eh.

All lifeforms adhere to the same mathematically precise and predictable sequence of numbers. Either Socrates designed the universe, or something that understood numbers did.
"I aspire to say in ten sentences what one would say in a novel... and would not say" ~Nietzsche
Offline
User avatar

pjkeeley

  • Posts: 694
    ( View: All / In topic )

  • Joined: April 10th, 2007, 8:41 am

Post Number:#84  PostMarch 26th, 2010, 1:33 am

Abiathar wrote:All lifeforms adhere to the same mathematically precise and predictable sequence of numbers. Either Socrates designed the universe, or something that understood numbers did.

Perhaps the numbers simply indicate unconscious universal laws. Who says they had to be designed? You are begging the question by assuming a mind had to be involved.
Offline

Meleagar

  • Posts: 1874
    ( View: All / In topic )

  • Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am

Post Number:#85  PostMarch 26th, 2010, 8:08 am

pjkeeley wrote:
Abiathar wrote:All lifeforms adhere to the same mathematically precise and predictable sequence of numbers. Either Socrates designed the universe, or something that understood numbers did.

Perhaps the numbers simply indicate unconscious universal laws. Who says they had to be designed? You are begging the question by assuming a mind had to be involved.


Since quantum physics indicates that not only do quanta not have qunatifiable attributes, but do not even have a determined history until a conscious mind observes them, it is far from an assumption that mind must have been involved in ordering quanta according to such mathematical elegance.
Offline

Belinda

Contributor

  • Posts: 9852
    ( View: All / In topic )

  • Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
  • Location: UK

Post Number:#86  PostMarch 27th, 2010, 5:24 am

it is far from an assumption that mind must have been involved in ordering quanta according to such mathematical elegance.
_________________


It's healthy cynicism that points out that, whatever the case may be, the popular mind tends to anthropomorphise laws of science.
Socialist
Offline

Meleagar

  • Posts: 1874
    ( View: All / In topic )

  • Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am

Post Number:#87  PostMarch 29th, 2010, 10:28 pm

Belinda wrote:
it is far from an assumption that mind must have been involved in ordering quanta according to such mathematical elegance.
_________________


It's healthy cynicism that points out that, whatever the case may be, the popular mind tends to anthropomorphise laws of science.


I am unfamiliar with the "laws of science". Perhaps you mean the laws of nature? It isn't cynicism that denies empricial evidence; it is ideology.
Offline
User avatar

wanabe

  • Posts: 3365
    ( View: All / In topic )

  • Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
  • Location: UBIQUITY
  • Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.

Post Number:#88  PostMarch 29th, 2010, 11:57 pm

Meleagar wrote:I am unfamiliar with the "laws of science". Perhaps you mean the laws of nature?


Don't play semantics.

It isn't cynicism that denies empricial evidence; it is ideology.


Would you please stop using the ideology of observation until you provide sources for your opinions?
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, And Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.
Offline

Meleagar

  • Posts: 1874
    ( View: All / In topic )

  • Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am

Post Number:#89  PostMarch 30th, 2010, 6:55 am

wanabe wrote: Don't play semantics.


Semantics? She might have meant the principles of science or the laws of nature.

Would you please stop using the ideology of observation until you provide sources for your opinions?


The source of my opinion? I am the source of my opinion. Who is the source of your opinion?
Offline
User avatar

Interventizio

  • Posts: 32
    ( View: All / In topic )

  • Joined: April 15th, 2010, 12:40 pm

Post Number:#90  PostMay 14th, 2010, 6:33 am

Do we always have to assume that evolution is all about brute force? Brute force is only a component of that and man as the most evoluted being is the proof.
A theory that postulates an intelligence behind nature, and that brings up again the ancient teleology though without expressing a view about the identity of this intelligence. What's the point? The inventors of this theory must not have read a single philosophy book if they think they are original.
PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Philosophy Book of the Month Updates

The January book of the month is The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. Discuss it here or buy it here.

The February book of the month is Moral Tribes by Joshua Greene. Pick it up, read it and discuss it with us as a group!