126 responses to “Science still says, ‘Creation occurred.’”

1. 

   Brad Croul

   15 January 2012

   I am not a physicist but I enjoyed the video, “Black Whole”, featuring the work of physicist Nassim Haramien. Rented it at NC Video on Argall.
   http://theresonanceproject.org/about/personnel/nassim-haramein

   LikeLike

2. 

   Ryan Mount

   15 January 2012

   Until God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or one of Shirley MacLaine’s past lives shows up, raises his/her/its hands (plural in case it’s the flying spaghetti monster or Shirley MacLaine’s past lives) and says, “Trees? You like trees? I made those happen. I’m also responsible for category 5 Hurricanes, death and people who hoard Elvis memorabilia,” we’ve got nothing but an untestable and fantastical belief system/myth.
   Now I know some of the readers of this blog have read (or pretend to have read) good-old Thomas Kuhn and his structuralist paradigm shifting yip-yap, and the more “Conservative” types here certainly have reverse-applied his rhetoric onto the current scientific “academic” milieu of around evolutionary biology and cosmology, but I want to see the experiment that even hints at an Intelligent Designer. My bets, if I must entertain this absurdity, are on a disgruntled teenage boy in a parallel universe who was asked to clean his room, but instead messed around with some household cleansers, which accidentally created our current home-sweet-home. After which he promptly swept us under the bed. Now that’s a myth I can believe in.
   Intelligent Design is a belief system this is largely a disingenuous proxy for Christianity concocted by people, of good intention I might add, to re-introduce God-ish-ness back into the academic discourse using the rhetoric of the post-modern hipsters. It’s really that simple. And it’s a fail.

   LikeLike

3. 

   Todd Juvinall

   15 January 2012

   We know the limitations of a human mind when a person believes in an alternate universe but not a GOD. We win! Or should I say, God wins!

   LikeLike

4. 

   Ryan Mount

   15 January 2012

   @Todd. What do/does we/God win? A year supply of turtle wax? Bragging rights down at the Mineshaft?
   But that aside, there appears to be evidence of different universes. String Theory or something like that. I believe people much smarter (or more stoned) and presumably more handsome (or not) than me call it a Multiverse:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
   Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against the believers other than an occasional incredulous chortle. And I do not mean to be insensitive, but I’m looking for the facts. And frankly I agree with George that I’ll take Christianity any day over, I dunno, pick any other theistic religion as I have a lot less chance of losing my literal head for being such a sardonic smarty pants as I’m doing here. So we got that.
   I’m just looking for an answer to Bertrand Russell’s teapot. Is God there or not? So far, I’m still waiting for Godot.

   LikeLike

5. 

   Todd Juvinall

   15 January 2012

   Who created the multiverse? You see, we choose to believe in something wonderful and good while others think science fiction is real.

   LikeLike

6. 

   George Rebane

   15 January 2012

   RyanM 1202pm – I’m not sure how Christianity per se got into the discussion here on ID. Should the multiverse structure of the cosmos (label for all there is that humans could ever discover) become testable science, then the arguments for ID would still not be affected.
   Just so that we’re not talking past each other, taxonomically ‘existence’ denotes the highest level of what IS. Existence may contain more than one ‘cosmos’. A cosmos is an existence class that is based on various relationships of what we know as the 4-tuple of matter, energy, space, and time. A cosmos contains one or more ‘universes’. A universe is an observable/testable (by us) 4-tuple domain that is bound by the laws of physics as we continue to discover them. And in general, a universe is any delimited 4-tuple that is observable/testable to all sentient and sapient civilizations which reside in that universe.
   Princeton’s John Wheeler, one of 20th century’s greatest physicists, gave himself the ultimate assignment before he died, to tackle the most fundamental of teleological inquiries, ‘Why existence?’ That worthy question, where science borders metaphysics, is now becoming of consuming interest to almost all physicists who delve into the origin, structure, and behavior of our 4-tuple. Why? Because we believe that the border is finally coming into view.

   LikeLike

7. 

   billy T

   15 January 2012

   If one looks at science with an open mind and reads the conclusions of the best and brightest in the top fields of the limited science we have now, the top dogs conclude that evolution can only occur in a closed system. However, we live in a expanding system. Mathematicians, the law of thermodynamics, NASA, cosmos, and micro biology are just a few of the realms that point to the impossibility of evolution. Something is beyond the creation of time and space. Most say their opinions privately such as the Harvard Dean of Mathematics who said that evolution is a 100% impossibility, but to teach intelligent design would be unpalatable. The formation and bonding of the DNA molecule can be recreated in a lab (closed system) using heat. However, heat destroys the molecule and the by product created is a kind of tar, which also destroys the DNA. Its the old throw a stick of dynamite into a building of letters and try again and again for billions of years and see if a Websters is recreated in perfect order. Right now we are stuck with two options. The first is we all come from a bacteria hitchhiking on some asteroid or intelligent design, be it aliens or God. Don’t waste my time telling all about software. I am more interested in who designed the mainframe that runs the software.

   LikeLike

8. 

   Ryan Mount

   15 January 2012

   George wrote: “I’m not sure how Christianity per se got into the discussion here on ID”
   ID was manufactured by Christians, George. Can we at least be honest about that? In more recent years is has also been brought to us by people who believe that Aliens/UFOs planted DNA here. Interesting bedfellows. And it has been somewhat ironically enabled, as I mentioned above, by its recent most proprietors using the same post-modern tools used by 1960/70ish Academic Liberals/Radicals starting to undermine or deconstruct, if you will, the “dominant paradigms” of the age. Science, or better the scientific methods are biased. (this is why our Progressives get so beside themselves and start name-calling because modern neo-orthodox/conservative arguments such as ID are implementing the same rhetoric used on college campuses; they can dish it out, but they can’t take it.) BTW, there probably is genuine bias going on here for reasons you and I probably agree on, but that’s not the point here. The point is ID is not science. It’s a belief system. Or as Charles Pierce puts it:
   “Intelligent design is religion disguised as science, and it defends itself as science by relying largely on the “respect” that we must give to all religious doctrine. Fact is merely what enough people believe, and truth lies only in how fervently they believe it.”
   And this has been accomplished by moving scientific method and empirical processes into the realm of the body politic and worse, into popular culture. Fact is as mutable as a polling sample.
   For record, I do not hear you saying that at all. Your approach is more sober and grounded and frankly curious, so I celebrate that. But the background noise in this ID movement is undeniable: it is largely anti-science and puts belief systems ahead of empirical research: in it’s extreme forms, Jesus rode dinosaurs.
   OK. That was the response to the first sentence. Where are we?
   George wrote: “Just so that we’re not talking past each other [snip] sapient civilizations which reside in that universe.”
   We are probably talking past each other, and that’s probably my fault for being a rude house guest here. However George, this smells of relativism. Is that your intention? But I tend to agree with you here, although I am suspicious on this abstraction of “existence.”
   BTW, you get major points for using the word teleological. It’s a complex concept that underpins much of our Western thought and assumptions: that there’s a beginning and an ostensibly, an end. Although, because I’m firmly a post-modern, I am not comfortable that. I tend to think both (beginnings and ends) are myths. Time only exists, to boorishly paraphrase Mr. Hawking, because we notice decay and entropy.

   LikeLike

9. 

   George Rebane

   15 January 2012

   I made no claims as to the pedigree of the label ‘Intelligent Design’, nor do I and those who think like me condone the use of ID as a label under which fundamental Christians, Jews, Muslims, … have attempted to hide the acceptance/teaching of spot creation or creationism. In serious discussions about existence, ID is accepted as a distinct religion-free proposition worthy of pursuit on its own merits.
   If we couldn’t use ID (or pick another similarly informative label), then we can’t very well discuss the notion that existences themselves may exist in an hierarchy, in one of which we may be subsumed, and others which we are already talking about creating in the not too distant future (i.e. some day we will play God to sentient sapients which we cause to come into existence).
   As such ID is a very scientific notion that stands vulnerable to the two pillars of that noble field of enquiry – falsifiability and Occam. And that is why it is being pursued without seeking permission, acceptance, or even acknowledgement from those who fear what the complete set of plausible solutions may contain. Like E=mc^2, ID is pervious to only one avenue of attack – papal/political bulls and burnings at the stake need not divert us.

   LikeLike

10. 

    Ryan Mount

    15 January 2012

    George, you’re exercising exactly what I proposed above ala Thomas Kuhn. And I’m OK with that, to a point. And that point is the core supposition of Intelligent Design is you need an Intelligent Designer(s). Maybe I’m misreading you and/or the ID community.
    I have no idea how one might design an experiment to test the the existence of an Intelligent Designer. Do we smash particles until a signed instruction manual is revealed?

    LikeLike

11. 

    billy T

    15 January 2012

    Interesting exchanges of ideas, Dr. Rebane and Mr. Mount. It won’t be solved here. I find it exciting that we live in an open, expanding universe that even puts the once “worshiped” 2nd Law of Thermodynamics open to challenge: everything must go from a highly ordered state to disorder, randomness and decay over time, such as winding a clock and watch it lose energy or throwing a baseball and watch it lose momentum. Yet, we observe the universe expanding with greater velocity and time speeding up. There is even something now being observed astronomers label only as “funny energy” that further defies our known laws of physics. To repeat, any thorough study of experiments and the “ingredients” used in observations and theories leave us with only two conclusions for the origin of life, time, space, and energy. Spontaneous generation or intelligent design. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago. If you believe in the second law of thermodynamics, then there was a highly organized creation point.

    LikeLike

12. 

    George Rebane

    15 January 2012

    No RyanM (226pm) you are not misreading the need for an intelligent designer if you posit that at least this universe has enjoyed purposive intervention to get by some developmental hurdles which requires what some call a certain level of ‘probabilistic resources’ that are not available in this universe’s 13.7B year life. I tried to relay that in my vignette about our playing God some day.
    BTW, it should be clear at this point that ID does not require any religious provenance for it to become a subject of discussion among serious scientists. Bringing in the agendas (hidden or otherwise) of various religions here is a waste of time and off topic.

    LikeLike

13. 

    George Rebane

    15 January 2012

    billyT 301pm – good point about the 2nd law of thermogodamics. Within the established discussion framework, we can now envision a cosmos that need not adhere to said 2nd law which may apply only to certain universes within that cosmos.

    LikeLike

14. 

    Brad Croul

    15 January 2012

    @George 308pm – “thermogodamics”, hmmm, is this an ID term?

    LikeLike

15. 

    George Rebane

    15 January 2012

    Good pick-up BradC. Thermogodamics ia a less than salutary label used by lower division physics majors when they encounter their first course in thermodynamics, and get hit by the biggest blizzard of differential equations they have yet encountered. Some wag a century ago shortened ‘goddam thermodynamics’ to ‘thermogodamics’.

    LikeLike

16. 

    billy T

    15 January 2012

    Hmm. Perhaps parallel universes? The 7th Heaven? I would love to shy away from the concept of Designer, but an open mind forbids me. That would be what Hebert Spencer called contempt prior to investigation. I know the surest way to break up a good conversation is for someone to drop the G word. The word God is like fingernails on the chalkboard and even the hint of Intelligent Design(er)produces the instant CLANG of minds closing like steel traps. I do not throw out or reject the laws of physics. I do believe time and space had an origin. I also believe the field of micro biology will reveal more answers (and create more questions) than the studies currently being done by our astro physicists. I also cannot discard the laws of thermodynamics as I observe mankind was much more intelligent in the past. Just look at the writings and creativity of men and women 400- 500 years ago. Who were our greatest sculptors, artists, thinkers, composers? As a small example, who categorized our zoological system and gave animals their names per such system? To break down complex living organisms into families and sub species per various characteristics without computers would be tough for any generation, yet we were handed this classification by our distant forefathers. How did the writer of the Book of Probabilities know 4,000 years ago that all water (and matter) is constant and no more is being produced/formed. Oh, we call that book Proverbs. Who could write our Constitution or Declaration of Independence today with such elegance and pure genius as the minds of 250 years ago and not make it sound like 20 pounds of legalize? So, I do believe in the laws of thermodynamics with a highly creative and organized starting point. This is not a which came first?, the chicken or egg issue. What was before nothing, before time, before matter? Oh, the full Herbert Spencer quote I referenced: There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to a man in everlasting ignorance–that principle is contempt prior to investigation”

    LikeLike

17. 

    Douglas Keachie

    15 January 2012

    I owuld be totally remiss if I did not chip in my two cents worth, on one of my favorite topics.
    God appears, coasting down a rainbow, and says that who He is, always has been, always will be.
    How do you know this entity is telling the truth?
    He could do every magic trick possible, but that would still prove nothing, or would not prove anything, take your pick.
    The problem is, I suspect the human mind is simply unable to cope with anything that always was, always will be. Everything else comes and goes, apparently including what we perceive as our current universe. Science is able to define 14 billion years or so, but what was before, or what will come, we’re pretty much clueless. Parallel universes, other dimensions, include them all, but they all are finite, and thus beg the question, “And what’s outside of THAT box,” ad infinitum. “It’s turtles all the way down, Sonny” the punch line to a joke in which an old lady declares that the universe stands on top of a giant turtle. She is asked, “and what does that turtle stand on?”
    As a hopeful agnostic I will be more than happy to discover that they is yet another chapter after all my molecules decide to disagree with one another. Why hopeful? There are only three possible things I know for sure about after death: it will be worse, or, it will be the same, or it will be better. Since two out of the three conditions are OK or fine by me, the odds are 2 good vs only one bad (bad would include zip existence, but you’d never experience that was what happened, not so bad, but what a weird conclusion). Given that I can’t do anything about the odds, but, they are in my favor, that’s cool.

    LikeLike

18. 

    Douglas Keachie

    15 January 2012

    “and not make it sound like 20 pounds of legalize? ” Legalize was invented by the lawyers to protect their guild. The Constitution was written to solve problems, not to make money, other than protecting and improving the interests of white male landowners.

    LikeLike

19. 

    Douglas Keachie

    15 January 2012

    It was also written to balance the relative powers of citizens of the various different colonies, in the new unified government. There is no evidence that God came down and directed the minds and pens of anyone, and certainly not Thomas Jefferson. Looks like God likes the Giants more than He likes Teebow. Let’s hope that God likes the Niners more than He likes the Giants. “If God is on our side, he’ll stop the next war.” ~ Bob Dylan ~

    LikeLike

20. 

    Douglas Keachie

    16 January 2012

    “Why existence” is a great question, but it is trumped by the fact that we accept that “existence indeed happens.” Even if we assume that we alone are the only person in the universe, and the rest of what we perceive as real is all imaginary, generated by a reality generator running amuck through our brain, we still have to admit, “existence is happening.” “I exist, and I am thinking.”

    LikeLike

21. 

    Douglas Keachie

    16 January 2012

    I have no problem accepting evolution and support Project Steve: from Wikipedia: Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who “support evolution”. It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a “tongue-in-cheek parody” of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who “doubt evolution,” such as the Answers in Genesis’ list of scientists who accept the biblical account of the Genesis creation narrative[1] or the Discovery Institute’s A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. The list pokes fun at such endeavors to make it clear that, “We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!” It also honors Stephen Jay Gould.[2]
    However, at the same time the project is a genuine collection of scientists. Despite the list’s restriction to only scientists with names like “Steve”, which in the United States limits the list to roughly 1 percent of the total population,[3] Project Steve is longer and contains many more eminent scientists than any creationist list. In particular, Project Steve contains many more biologists than the creationist lists, since about 51% of the listed Steves are biologists.[4]
    The “Steve-o-meter” webpage provides an updated total of scientist “Steves” that have signed the list.[5] As of 9 January 2012, the Steve-o-meter registered 1,185 Steves.[

    LikeLike

22. 

    Douglas Keachie

    16 January 2012

    http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-steves

    LikeLike

23. 

    billy T

    16 January 2012

    Love your comments, Mr. Keachie. Yes, I should have used Shakespeare instead of Thomas Jefferson and I felt it did not fit while typing it. My point is I believe our species may have possessed more innate intelligence, intuition and creativity closer to the starting point, which would go with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I did not venture into the realm of Divine Providence to describe our forefathers abilities, although many use that phrase for lack of a better term for explain the unexplainable. I don’t believe in evolution as it is currently known due to the complexity and conditions necessary for the formation of the DNA molecule. At least not from the center of the earth or volcanoes which would have prevented the nucleotides from bonding. Perhaps from the bottom of an ocean is a possibility, I will grant you. Too many fields of science are pointing to x to the 29th as the possibility of evolution as Darwin put forth, who in his last years recanted his theory, yet evolution has been taught as carved in stone. Excuse the sublime reference to Moses and the Tablets of Stone, 🙂 Archaeologists search high and low for the missing link, yet I have yet to be convinced that a species has ever evolved into a completely different species. Sure, horses were once small and dolphins were once huge and many species have disappeared. Yes, the crossing of a couple of fruits have produced plums, or is it apricots? Finding a hip bone under 100 feet of soil and another one 300 yards away under 220 feet of soil does not mean the two were from the same creature. Archaeology would tell you that the different depths would be from different time periods, yet all rules were pushed aside for the hope that the missing link was discovered. We go to any lengths when the ends justify the means. That find made the Australian dirt digger a rock star in his field, until after 20 years of enjoying fame and fortune, he, too, recanted his find as evidence of the Missing Link. We all know that Homer wrote the Iliad. But did he? One single copy discovered hundreds of years after his death is not proof to me. Or are there 4 versions 1000 years after his passing and they are much different. Did Homer even exist or know how to write? Yet, we take this as fact. Prove it. You get my point. We all are worshipers. Some worship science and some worship music, and some worship themselves. I worship the sight of a distant ship on the horizon at sunset and the way a woman’s hair falls on her shoulders.

    LikeLike

24. 

    George Rebane

    16 January 2012

    Project Steve (DougK 1219am) reminds me of the current parallel effort by political types and laymen to confirm various tenets of climate change like AGW. All of them cite the length of list of ‘scientists’ who are supposed to be in support. Even scientists on shaky ground apply that argument as related by Einstein when informed of the many prominent scientists who listed themselves as rejecting special relativity. (By the time general relativity came along, all of them were trying their best to change what they had really said.)
    In any event, the overwhelming fraction of scientists named Steve, or anything else, don’t have the necessary math based tools to speak authoritatively on something as complex as what I gathered under the over-strained rubric of ‘probabilistic resources’. As in the climate sciences, most biologists focus on their narrow fields in fauna and flora, isolating, describing, and relating minute functions in their specialty lifeforms.
    Regarding worship (billyT 641am), I am perfectly satisfied to worship the Intelligent Designer who may have given rise to the universe I know, whether you want to call the designer God or whatever. I am drawn to the Christian cosmology (but not the way it is taught in your neighborhood church) simply because were I God, it is what I would do with the critters that I brought to life. From my studies and experience such an interpretation totally dovetails with science’s revelations and best satisfies Occam.

    LikeLike

25. 

    Douglas Keachie

    16 January 2012

    Indeed we are all worshipers, but unfortunately, a great many on the planet are convinced that it’s their way or the shun way (Evangelicals and other variants of the Christian “species”) or in some interpretations of the Koran, the death way. Using a religion to justify telling other people how to live is, if there is a Goddish critter, is one of the greatest sins on his short list. Using His name to puff themselves up and put others down, sometimes literally, is in at least within the Top Ten List of Sins. Since it is Martin Luther King Day, I will salute a certain R. King who famously said, “Can’t we all just get along?”

    LikeLike

26. 

    Douglas Keachie

    16 January 2012

    I could easily go through the 32,000 hits, for [“evolution of DNA” “statistical analysis”] and find impeccable mathematical backgrounded researchers who say “most likely yes, to the hypothesis”, but I’ve got a lot of work to do before the rains hit, so I’ll leave that exercise elsewhere. George, did you miss the fact that Project Steve was done “tongue in cheek” and still got a huge number of respectable folks? The disclaimer about using “lists” to determine scientific truth was stated very plainly on the link I provide, right in the first introductory paragraphs.

    LikeLike

27. 

    Douglas Keachie

    16 January 2012

    Here’s a sample of worshippers gone wrong: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/02/22/83337/disabled-abortion/?mobile=nc and this guy is in the legislature?

    LikeLike

28. 

    Douglas Keachie

    16 January 2012

    And here’s a problem for you, how do planariums get along without what was once considered a key structure in their cells:
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/16/BA2E1MMTLF.DTL

    LikeLike

29. 

    George Rebane

    16 January 2012

    DougK 940am – I fully understood the humor of Project Steve. I only tried to relay that a similar effort at validation rendered WITHOUT humor has been foisted on earth’s population by the UN IPCC and Team Gore. Go figger.

    LikeLike

30. 

    Douglas Keachie

    16 January 2012

    Of course you have to be prepared to have your established notions about what can and can’t happen revised from time to time…..http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-scientists-replicate-key-evolutionary-life.html

    LikeLike

31. 

    George Rebane

    17 January 2012

    Indeed DougK (1035pm), as we discover new processes in nature that are more likely to occur, then we whittle away at the required probabilistic resources of the universe. And that goes the other way also, digging deeper also has uncovered previously unknown processes whose probabilistic rates are vanishingly small.

    LikeLike

32. 

    billy T

    17 January 2012

    I feel sorry for Stephen Hawking and can understand his aghast that science is pointing to Creation. He spent is whole life relying of superior intelligence and science to discover the non-origin of our universe, yet reasonable men of study are coming to different conclusions. Human intelligence can only take you so far. We can only observe with awe the farthest reaches of the universe and can only observe the unfathomable complexities at the sub atomic level. Yet, the more we use science and study, the more our best and brightest observe a perfect order and harmony even it the most minute unseen complex properties at the tiniest level to the largest levels. Reasonable men are staring at the proposition that this harmony and perfect order could not have arisen out a big bang explosion (or implosion), out of nothingness and chaos and total randomness. This perfect balance must have had a starting point. That is why I believe the breakthroughs in micro biology will make the theory of evolution a flat earth topic in 50 years. As Professor Hawking is confronted with challenges to his “no start of the universe” theory and life’s work, he must press on for ego’s sake. Human nature is predictable. Allow me to compare Mr. Hawking work to someone who decides to study interpersonal relationships. The researcher looks around and falls into the trap of studying anatomy. He studies the human bone structure, the blood vessels, the organs. Like peeling off layers on an onion, he discovers more and more . But each layer he uncovers, brings him no closer to his original aim of understanding interpersonal relationships. His vast accumulation of knowledge leaves him clueless to understanding relationships that was caused him so much grief. He dives into anthropology and still is no closer to is original aim. Professor Hawking may one day echo the ancient writer crying out “Vanity, vanity, all things are vanity”, which being correctly translated is “Emptiness, emptiness, all things are empty.” Some of us have traveled distances to discover what was under our noses the whole time.

    LikeLike

33. 

    George Rebane

    17 January 2012

    billyT 845am – Eloquent and to the point.

    LikeLike

34. 

    Douglas Keachie

    17 January 2012

    So Billy T and George Rebane give up, take on the “God is Great” hypothesis, lock stock and barrel, and that solves a lot of “problems” for them. at a much higher level than Al Qaeda, or your typical evangelical, admittedly, as at least George is still poking a the fire to see what new sparks may show. Bill may be doing the same, it’s hard to tell.
    I’m sorry, in my heart of hearts and brain of brain, I will keep on examining the problem, and realize that there may be no answer which is understandable by either heart or brain or both combined, but I value the fact that I don’t give up on the evidence I can see and feel. if we simply “vanish” existence-wise, at death, let if be known, in advance, that I am very annoyed by such a huge practical joke, but there were a lot of fun and loving times, so I guess that makes up for it.

    LikeLike

35. 

    Douglas Keachie

    17 January 2012

    I dove into anthropology after trying psych and soc, because when I wandered the hall of the Anthro dept, I discovered far more and much better cartoon clipping posted on and around the doors of the prof’s offices. In general, anthro folks seemed much more in touch with the human side of things, and humor, for me, is very much a core value, as high in any constellation of human values are spirituality, etc.

    LikeLike

36. 

    George Rebane

    17 January 2012

    DougK 1007am – Please don’t misunderstand, there is no “giving up” on anything, most certainly not on the evidence. In their own ways both the Judea-Christian and Vedantic traditions teach that God created an ‘ordered universe’, one that is designed to reveal its make-up through systematic examination, i.e. science (as opposed to a Harry Potter world).
    And the adherents of these traditions are exhorted to take up those studies so they can appropriately “subdue” and husband that creation, which cannot be done without identifying and then optimally controlling ‘the system’ with which we have been presented. There is no resting on the oars implied by any facet of ID. No scientists of this conclusion have ever folded their tents with ‘I guess then there is no point in going on.’
    In these efforts we all must be willing to go where the evidence points. (And that evidence may even include God telling us from a cloud of thunder and lightning that it was not He who created the universe ;-))

    LikeLike

37. 

    Douglas Keachie

    17 January 2012

    Again, however, you appear to be using statistics to rebrand intelligent design/creationism and to point to how improbably things are for evolution. It seems to me that the most improbable thing of all is the very fact that there IS existence, or even space in which existence can take place, at all. As improbable as it seems, we do seem to be here. We seem to be headed for, “if there is no God, there is no existence.” Or, “God exists, because existence exists.” Which is another “cat chasing tail” explanation, I think these things are called either “tautologies” or “circular reasoning.” Or, “The time for Tau is now.”

    LikeLike

38. 

    Douglas Keachie

    17 January 2012

    I am of course using the word tautology in the rhetorical sense of the word. Wittgenstein was bad enough the first time around, with one of the best profs at Berkeley.
    A rhetorical tautology should not be confused with a tautology in propositional logic, since the inherent meanings and subsequent conclusions in rhetorical and logical tautologies are very different.

    LikeLike

39. 

    billy T

    17 January 2012

    Doug, evidence is pointing to Intelligent Design and more will be revealed , much more as human curiosity and scientific discovery and even those hell bent on disproving ID will uncover, probably to no one’s satisfaction or 100% certainty. The dilemma is who designed the mainframe as we can only observe the software. Questions of an after life or why are we here and for what purpose is up to each individual to decide for themselves, or simply live with unanswered questions. I am eager for more to be revealed. The problem is more philosophical as to why we exist, depending on the individual’s preferences and prejudices and environment. I believe human beings are born with an innate belief in a Superior Being, or whatever term that catches your fancy. It is part of us as being born with a conscious is, as evidenced by all cultures throughout the history of mankind building temples or sacrifices or carving stones in every scattered region to appease or honor “the Divine”. Many spend their lives trying to fight or push aside this innate part of them. Some go further than I and say we are born with a fear of impending doom or Judgement Day if you will. Science has yet to measure the tenderness of the heart or the human will, which is as much as part of us as our arms and legs. Science and laymen alike can only observe. Is the designer off somewhere else or still involved in this universe? Is creation a single act or an on going process? Just simply saying “science is pointing to Creation” is kicking a hornets nest. It leaves one open to ridicule and nasty name calling. But why should it? If science is pointing to a possibility, why should we not see where it takes us with an open mind? Surely answering these questions are more important to us humans than looking at old drawings of Professor Big Brain’s Flying Machine or calculating the weight of the fuzz in one’s navel. Very exciting dynamic times.

    LikeLike

40. 

    Dixon Cruickshank

    17 January 2012

    All religons had “Gods” or a God and all civilizations talked about “Gods”. This has come through many of mans interpretations but what we have is a “Missing Link” – the jump to civilization all across the world in a very short time frame – watch the Ancient Aliens program but better yet read Von Dankins books. Best explaination I have found so far and explains God and Gods – and all these giant monuments we couldn’t build today but we are to believe were built by Hunter/Gathers – hard for me to buy that. Just the Nasca Plain in Peru will stump you. So in fact yes there was a God.

    LikeLike

41. 

    Douglas Keachie

    17 January 2012

    Either God or aliens built all the stuff we couldn’t build? Bring even Jefferson forward a mere two hundred years, and microbiology, electronics,your main frames, cameras/film and CCD’s would be beyond his wildest imaginings. Have you noticed aliens or God(s) messing with the heads of the Wright Brothers, or Edison, or our surfer laureate? (the guy who while stoned and driving up 101 and watching the white dashed line hit upon the way to make a zillion copies of portions of DNA ]The improvements made by Kary Mullis allowed PCR to become a central technique in biochemistry and molecular biology, described by The New York Times as “highly original and significant, virtually dividing biology into the two epochs of before P.C.R. and after P.C.R.]
    As for not being able to move or build, or yes the could, has the History channel has shown time and again. If you wish to say that man could not have done ancient marvels without help, you are probably falling into the trap that because they lived some primitively, they were dumber than we are. Our brain case has been pretty stable in size for the last 200,000 years.
    As for claiming a trend, there is no sucha thing. What come next is always unknown, and as I pointed out, something thought impossible to do turned out to be relatively simple, and if DNA originally came from another planet, so what, that does not mean that it couldn’t have had an environment possibly even more statistically favorable than here to make it happen.
    When pinned, even GG knows that he has absolutely no way of predicting for sure what the sun will do next. It could have many more or many fewer solar flares at any time. Would somebody like to show me where in astrophysical research there is a line of study that clearly show a predictable sequence for which star will super-nova next? I do not believe it exists, too few observed cases, at least in this galaxy.
    I have no quarrel with the notion that people have worshipped those/that which they take to be Gods from the beginnings of homo sapiens sapiens, 200,000 years ago, and perhaps even further back, but just because folks are worshipping them, it doesn’t mean that they exist.

    LikeLike

42. 

    George Rebane

    17 January 2012

    DougK 358pm – It appears that you are debating what you consider to be a fairly tight amalgam of opposing views when you make such general pronouncements. For the sake of clarity, you might identify the counterparty you are addressing, because I believe that you are encountering more than one distinct view of ID and/or Man’s transcendence.

    LikeLike

43. 

    Gregory

    17 January 2012

    “When pinned”? Don’t be an ass, Keach. I’ve always described the state of solar cycle knowledge; that your understanding is ever shifting has always been the problem. When you first started trying to deflect solar arguments, it was well established that there was a major increase in solar magnetic activity in the early 20th century, about an 8000 year maximum, and that it couldn’t last long.
    As far as intelligent design not to be confused with creationism, I suspect that aligns with the Baroque period that is not to be confused with the Renaissance. There will always be gaps of scientific knowledge, and anyone who feels a need to imagine where God is hiding will always be able to find a home for Him.

    LikeLike

44. 

    Paul Emery

    17 January 2012

    Someone please explain to me how the human mind can possibly have the preceptors to contemplate their own creation. What can we possibly know except what we see, feel smell, hear or touch. We of course do have our imagination and inspiration which of course all religious experiences are based.
    My best friend from years ago became an inspired Christian who spoke personally with Jesus every night. I don’t doubt for a minute his experience. I’ve also had friends who have experienced out of body travel studying Shamanism I also doubt them.
    So contemplating creation in my view is futile. How can a particle contemplate the universe.

    LikeLike

45. 

    Gregory

    17 January 2012

    Paul, particles don’t contemplate the universe, but we do. Spinning myths used to be the best we could do to understand or at least explain but in the last 500 years or so we’ve hit on making good guesses and testing them.

    LikeLike

46. 

    billy T

    17 January 2012

    Hawking is quoted “A point of creation would be a place where science broke down.” That place would be beyond even Hawkin’s capacity to accept. He completely trusts and is dependent on science. Those that believe 110% that science will provide all the answers and is infallible are setting themselves for disappointment. Science is Hawking’s God. Same with those who believe politics will create Utopia. Someone once said “if God did not exist, man would invent him”. Paul is on to something. How can the finite fully comprehend, much less apprehend the infinite? If we are spinning in space going nowhere from nowhere with no purpose or direction, then life for us is most sad indeed. If true, then we might as well live each day as every man for themselves with each of us the center of the Universe. Watching spellbound the flight of a falcon or gazing at the stars or dew on a flower scream that there is a more that meets the eye. Someone once said “God don’t make junk.” I don’t know whether poets or scientists are more in tune with creation, but “there is something out there.”, another quote.

    LikeLike

47. 

    Paul Emery

    17 January 2012

    Billy
    I totally believe in spiritual inspiration. It is one of the universal experiences of humanity. It is very personal to the individual who experiences it. It is indeed what makes us different from banana slugs and gives us the freedom and arrogance to even contemplate our own existence.
    Gregory
    I agree we have made tremendous progress in gathering information within our limited perceptions. We even create machines that expand our preceptors that give us a pinpoint of light into the universe.

    LikeLike

48. 

    George Rebane

    17 January 2012

    Is it not possible that through its myriads of civilizations scattered throughout the stars creation can not only contemplate itself, but also its Source and Sink? And if indeed our Designer is asei (cf aseity), then every bit and we ourselves are made of divine stuff. In the end, then everything down to the smallest quantum burble is nothing but what the Designer thinks, workings in the Mind of God.

    LikeLike

49. 

    Paul Emery

    18 January 2012

    Of course contemplation is possible within the confines of the input sensory tentacles we possess both organic and man made. Perhaps it’s the endless desire we have to contemplate such matters that fuel our evolution.
    I am reminded that when you combine an agnostic, a dyslexic and an insomniac you have someone who stays up all night contemplating whether there is a Dog.

    LikeLike

50. 

    Todd Juvinall

    18 January 2012

    I have yet to see a a explanation by the Paul’s of the world how it is that dinosaurs ruled the world for 150 million years and never built a house or created a recipe for Stegosaurus soup. If Darwinism is in play, how did that happen?

    LikeLike