Is life so complex that it requires a designer?

[Bigshadow]

Given enough time and all the pieces, eventually something will happen, plain and simple. Now I am inclined to believe that there may be intelligent design, but in no way do I think there HAS to be an intelligent designer.

Face it 1000 years ago, some things that were considered divine and have since been explained with math and science. I believe we have only scratched the surface.

 

[heretic888]

Given enough time and all the pieces, eventually something will happen, plain and simple. Now I am inclined to believe that there may be intelligent design, but in no way do I think there HAS to be an intelligent designer.

Face it 1000 years ago, some things that were considered divine and have since been explained with math and science. I believe we have only scratched the surface.

Most of the supposed contradictions that proponents of Intelligent Design claim exist in evolutionary theory are more parsimoniously explained by organic selection (i.e., the manipulation of a population's environment by virtue of learning) than by appealing to a transcendent Other.

This isn't anything new, either. James Mark Baldwin published his "A New Factor in Evolution" in 1896. It's been around for awhile.

Laterz.

 

[mrhnau]

This isn't anything new, either. James Mark Baldwin published his "A New Factor in Evolution" in 1896. It's been around for awhile.

Age of a concept is irrelevant. bible has been around longer than James Baldwin. Nah nah nah nah nah

hehe

You can put lipstick on a pig, but I still ain't kissin' it.

Nice to know where you stand. Thanks for the commentary! LOL

Face it 1000 years ago, some things that were considered divine and have since been explained with math and science. I believe we have only scratched the surface.

Many things have been, many things have not. Will science uncover everything? Doubtful. Its a matter of where your faith is I suppose... Change one religion for another.

MrH

 

[michaeledward]

Many things have been, many things have not. Will science uncover everything? Doubtful. Its a matter of where your faith is I suppose... Change one religion for another.

Science is not religion. To insinuate that it is displays a lack of understanding, or a desire to muddy the debate.

Many things are unknowable through science. Many of those exist in the realm of faith. Many scientists have no problem with that concept. It seems, however, the reverse is not true.

 

[mrhnau]

Science is not religion. To insinuate that it is displays a lack of understanding, or a desire to muddy the debate.

Depends on your definition of religion.

 

[7starmantis]

Science is not religion. To insinuate that it is displays a lack of understanding, or a desire to muddy the debate.

Many things are unknowable through science. Many of those exist in the realm of faith. Many scientists have no problem with that concept. It seems, however, the reverse is not true.

Thats a sweeping generalization which could be made of the "other side" by saying that the acceptance of science as absolute truth is a sort of dogma in sheeps clothing. Many people believe science as the end all and accept what "science" says much like a religion on a faith type basis.

7sm

 

[michaeledward]

Thats a sweeping generalization which could be made of the "other side" by saying that the acceptance of science as absolute truth is a sort of dogma in sheeps clothing. Many people believe science as the end all and accept what "science" says much like a religion on a faith type basis.

7sm

Did I read this right?

Are you saying that someone makes the claim that "science is absolute truth"?

Who? When? Where?

 

[heretic888]

Thats a sweeping generalization which could be made of the "other side" by saying that the acceptance of science as absolute truth is a sort of dogma in sheeps clothing.

They could make that claim, of course, but then reality would slap them in the face.

"Science", as in the scientific method, is not a religion. It is a means of acquiring and analyzing information about ourselves (psychology & sociology) and the world (physics, biology, & chemistry). That is all.

Of course, you could make the claim that things like "secular humanism", "scientism", "rational empiricism", or "scientific materialism" are all religions of sorts. And I would probably agree with you. However, this should be distinguished from the scientific method itself, which does not intrinsically subscribe to any given philosophy or worldview.

The claim that scientific knowledge is viewed as "absolute truth" is pretty damn hilarious, when you consider the core idea of the scientific method is that science only deals in propositional truth and (via peer review) is perpetually self-correcting.

The dogma criticism has some merits in certain areas of some fields, but the overall truth is that science requires peer-reviewed data to fall into positive favor here. You couldn't just make baseless claims without some pretty heavy criticism by about a hundred of your peers more than willing to tear your new pet theory apart.

Hell, some scientists make it their personal mission to try and deconstruct long standing and orthodox theories and assumptions within their fields. If you disproved, say, Einstein or Darwin, that'd certainly land you a nobel prize.

Laterz.

 

[Ceicei]

Life doesn't "require" a designer. We make our lives as simple or as complex. If the designer is part of that life for the person, then so be it.

- Ceicei

 

[mrhnau]

*scratches head* Hasn't this been discussed elsewhere on MT? A search did not bring it up, but I seem to recall the same conversation.

 

[Ceicei]

*scratches head* Hasn't this been discussed elsewhere on MT? A search did not bring it up, but I seem to recall the same conversation.

Probably. Many of these topics do get brought up in one way or another on MT.

- Ceicei

 

[arnisador]

Hell, some scientists make it their personal mission to try and deconstruct long standing and orthodox theories and assumptions within their fields. If you disproved, say, Einstein or Darwin, that'd certainly land you a nobel prize.

Not likely, unless you constructed an alternate theory in its place. Many people found anomalies that didn't match Newtonian physics--e.g., why don't electrons spinning around atoms have decaying orbits that eventually collapse?--but no one got a Nobel until they came up with a replacement theory of their own. Experimental evidence disproves the theory, but it takes setting your own theory up as the next target to really get attention in most cases.

 

[michaeledward]

Science is not religion.

Depends on your definition of religion.

No, really, it doesn't.

 

[qizmoduis]

Depends on your definition of religion.

No, it doesn't, unless your definition of religion is so sweeping as to be meaningless.

But then, that's an oft-used tactic of anti-science crusaders. It's much easier, for them, to redefine words than it is to do the real work that good science requires.

 

[mrhnau]

No, it doesn't, unless your definition of religion is so sweeping as to be meaningless.

But then, that's an oft-used tactic of anti-science crusaders. It's much easier, for them, to redefine words than it is to do the real work that good science requires.

Then how do we define religion? How about atheism? Is lack of belief a religion? agnostic? Those who seek or don't have enough evidence? Is it a matter of faith? Since we all have faith of some sort (to the point of ridiculous, you don't check your chairs when you sit down), is it a matter of where we put out faith? Must religion be organized? Must there be a central authority? How about spiritualism? Is it a matter of seeking answers about life and the universe? You can define your definition of religion to suite yourself. (waits for the dictionary links to appear). Regardless, its diverging from the original intent of the thread... perhaps another thread on the topic is in order?

Defining religion is not anti-science, nor "real work". Some use a broad definition, some use a narrow. I don't consider myself anti-science, especially since I'm a scientist. However, I do have a broad interpretation of what religion is. As science has progressed, its been trying to answer more and more questions that has generally been left in the hands of religion. Is this bad? I don't think so. But it does start crossing the line between religion and non-religion. Some follow science with the same furvor of the religious fanatic, and hold by its tenets as strongly. To me, thats expressing faith (perhaps not in the results, but the process?).

With regard to stepping into the bounds of religion, I guess a little clarification is useful. Science is good at answering certain questions. The process is useful in many quests for knowledge. However, as science has progressed, its own set of "morality" has emerged. If we examine science w/out some form of external morality, we run into problems. Are the expirements performed by the Nazi's science? Is the science performed moral? If we remove the morality, or allow its own morality to develop (whatever is good for science is ok), we start having problems:

Naziesque human expirementation
Animal torture for medical benefits
Development of modern abortion techniques
Cloning techniques being applied to humans

Now, are all of these wrong? People disagree. However, the answers should -not- be saught from the realm of science, though many find their answers there.

 

[Flatlander]

That judgement was damning, but I'm satisfied with the outcome. In the end, the judge predicated the decision on the separation of church and state. That, I believe, was the correct way to look at it.

I have a question. For those that believe that all this is a result of some intelligent design: by what or whom was it designed? Further, what was the process by which the designer implemented this design?

 

[7starmantis]

They could make that claim, of course, but then reality would slap them in the face.

Of course, because sweeping generalizations are only valid if describing those who do not agree with us

"Science", as in the scientific method, is not a religion. It is a means of acquiring and analyzing information about ourselves (psychology & sociology) and the world (physics, biology, & chemistry). That is all.

Wow, ok...um...you seem to have taken my post for alot more than it was. I never said science was a religion and I never said anything about the scientific method. What I did say was that there are people who take "science" as dogma in that they blindly hold its "truth" as self-evident and accept it all on a faith basis. This is not how science is to be used and is much like a religion in and of itself.

Of course, you could make the claim that things like "secular humanism", "scientism", "rational empiricism", or "scientific materialism" are all religions of sorts. And I would probably agree with you. However, this should be distinguished from the scientific method itself, which does not intrinsically subscribe to any given philosophy or worldview.

It is distinguished from the scientific method, in your haste to make that point you overlooked that I didn't actually say anything close to that. It could be that you are attempting to discredit my argument by twisting my posts, but I much prefer to assume it was an oversight. :wink:

The claim that scientific knowledge is viewed as "absolute truth" is pretty damn hilarious, when you consider the core idea of the scientific method is that science only deals in propositional truth and (via peer review) is perpetually self-correcting.

I agree, it is pretty damn hillarious, and I laugh uncontrolably at those who view it as such, but it is still viewed as such by some people. Just because you dont subscribe to that ideology doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I wasn't refering to you personally, I think you may have taken my post as aimed at you.

7sm