Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

[Dondi]

Tao,

For some reason I didn't see bob's post. I fail to see how abiogenesis is a separate issue from naturalistic evolution. As bob defines it, the theory of evolution is compatable with the first cell occuring naturally or with some supernatural force. My contention is whether or not it did happen naturally. You might claim that I'm trying to toss the "god of the gaps" into the equation. I'm not really, I'm just trying to establish that something unusual occurred, if indeed the first cell sprang into life through natural means. Nor am I trying to box anyone in a corner and say, "Aha!" But abiogenesis is only scratching the surface in this evolution thing. I'm not so dogmatic in clinging to the biblical model of creation that I won't allow for the possibility that the process occurred as as evolutionist say. But there are just things that cannot be explained by that model as being presented in the schools. There are fundamental flaws that ought to be addressed and not just pumped into the minds of children as if they are bare fact. The political process has stymied even questioning the theory of evolution.

You reference "fantastic" numbers: these are derived from ludicrous pretenses at calculation based on false assumptions.

See, I'm willing to learn about these false assumptions. If this has been hashed out elsewhere, please direct me to another thread. Or else, point to a reference that explains how these calculations are ludicrous. I'm open to it.

But Wil took the tangent of calling into question the essence of atoms and that is one I can pick up and run with. And i suppose in doing it answers the question of abiogenesis. I think unlike Wil, however, I will decline from apportioning any divinity to that which makes atoms "alive". But I do believe every single sub-atomic partical in our universe is in some sense a lot more than we may give credit. And i believe that everyone of them is inter-connected outwith what we would call our standard laws of physics. Unfortunately I do not have time to go into a long discourse on it. And Wil, well i know you know where I will take it. You would ascribe a little more "sentience" than I would to it however.

I'm listening.

So instead I will leave you with a question Dondi. What do creationists have to say about Quantum states?

I am familiar with quantum mechanics. I don't know what creationists say in general about it, but I have no objections in exploring any relevant avenues in the current discussion. What is your point on the matter?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Well if you have an opinion on it then exp-lain "spooky action at a distance", (quantum etanglement), for example in terms of creationist theory. The fact is they have not mentioned it...because they are so busy de-evolving back to primitive concepts.
As for other issues you raise... well I will address certain issues tomorrow, wont have time till then, and I defy you to explain them in creationist terms and make sense. Till then...try not to get too entangled

Tao

 

[Dondi]

Well if you have an opinion on it then exp-lain "spooky action at a distance", (quantum etanglement), for example in terms of creationist theory. The fact is they have not mentioned it...because they are so busy de-evolving back to primitive concepts.
As for other issues you raise... well I will address certain issues tomorrow, wont have time till then, and I defy you to explain them in creationist terms and make sense. Till then...try not to get too entangled

Tao

I dunno, you're talking particle physics here whem you speak of quantum phenomena. But evolution isn't observable at the quantum level, but at the classical level of physics. Unless you are implying that there is a quantum information exchange at the particle level and thus atoms communicate in this fashion, through non-locality, and therefore are "alive". Perhaps you could clarify what you are getting at. Are you of the CI camp or many-worlds camp?

At least one article from a creationist website seems to favor what's known as the hidden-variables model. I, myself, haven't delved heavily into quantum mechanics, but from what I have read doesn't detract from any views I might have concerning creation or evolution. Actually, the whole quantum thing gives the univesre a profound mystery. If there is an afterlife and a heaven, one would expect it not to be viewable in the dimensions we have. Quantum mechanics at least allows the possibility that we haven't seen everythijg there is to see.

 

[bob x]

At least one article from a creationist website seems to favor what's known as the hidden-variables model.

Which was proven not to work decades ago.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I like the idea of teaching intelligent design. Find a way to take the creationist propaganda out of it and I'm all for it. Make it about the ergonomics of nature. That would be great.

Chris

 

[Tao_Equus]

I dunno, you're talking particle physics here whem you speak of quantum phenomena. But evolution isn't observable at the quantum level, but at the classical level of physics. Unless you are implying that there is a quantum information exchange at the particle level and thus atoms communicate in this fashion, through non-locality, and therefore are "alive". Perhaps you could clarify what you are getting at. Are you of the CI camp or many-worlds camp?

At least one article from a creationist website seems to favor what's known as the hidden-variables model. I, myself, haven't delved heavily into quantum mechanics, but from what I have read doesn't detract from any views I might have concerning creation or evolution. Actually, the whole quantum thing gives the univesre a profound mystery. If there is an afterlife and a heaven, one would expect it not to be viewable in the dimensions we have. Quantum mechanics at least allows the possibility that we haven't seen everythijg there is to see.

Charles Darwin was forced to publish the Origin of Species because by coincidence, synchronicity or perhaps because its time had come due to the prevailing thought streams of the day, a rival was about to publish an almost identical theory. Darwin had serious misgivings about his ideas and held off publishing for two reasons. Because he was a Christian and he feared what it would do to creationist dogma he was raised on and because he believed, and did till his death, that his theory was incomplete.

That old metaphor of a million monkeys jabbing away at typewriters into infinity producing the complete works of Shakespeare is basically what Darwin used as a mechanism for evolution. And he was uncomfortable with it. Today we have experimental data that confirmed what Darwin suspected, that information can be passed by isolated communities of organisms without any visible method of communication. This is, if I may be so bold to suggest, why Wil and I mention Quantum sciences. So you see we suggest that Quantum effects can and do effect evolution.

Where Wil and I will part on this issue is actually quite difficult to define. Suffice to say that I did toy for a few years with romantic models of divine origin but rejected them in the belief that Gaia, the organism that is all life on Earth, is not God but where we get this sense of God from. But it is just an organism, a beautiful, complicated one, but not the creator of the Universe.

To be honest I am very surprised that no creationist has yet attempted to hijack Quantum Field phenomena and pervert it to proof for the existence of God. Could it be that creationists actually have a target audience that are simply not well enough educated to build such a model they would understand? I think so. Because to really understand creationism you cannot look alone at what they say, but who says it and to who. Its a closed shop where rational debate is excluded and dogmatic sloganeering and ridiculous references to an old book replaces all reason. And as far as I can see it only has one aim..... profit.
I believe you stated that you are not a young Earth creationist but do not know exactly what you do think. But the evidence for life on Earth and evolution is vastly superior to that offered by any theology. I do want to say more but its late again, I will look in again in the morning and see what I have failed to say here.

Regards

tao

 

[bob x]

"Find a way to take the creationist propaganda out of it and " you will find that there is nothing left.

 

[Dondi]

That old metaphor of a million monkeys jabbing away at typewriters into infinity producing the complete works of Shakespeare is basically what Darwin used as a mechanism for evolution. And he was uncomfortable with it. Today we have experimental data that confirmed what Darwin suspected, that information can be passed by isolated communities of organisms without any visible method of communication. This is, if I may be so bold to suggest, why Wil and I mention Quantum sciences. So you see we suggest that Quantum effects can and do effect evolution.

But this information had to originate somewhere.

So you think that Quantum Mechanics is the answer to the question of life? Do you think that it is responsible for the DNA coding that was, and still is necessary, for the probragation of life here on Earth. A code so sophisticated that it take supercomputers many hours to map out and sequence the code of even simple bacteria? A code that not only needed to support the function of the cell, but also contrive a way to replicate itself for the purpose of reproduction? Somehow, I find it hard to believe that Quantum Mechanics did all that. Can you explain how it accomplished this?

I'm not standing here victoriously trying waving the "God" flag at you, but it seems to me that there is some "wisdom" in developing the information we are face with. There is this wisdom in all life processes and when you really dig down and look, much is just amazing to ponder. Could all of what we see come from a mindless process? I find it hard to fathom, to be honest.

 

[wil]

Where Wil and I will part on this issue is actually quite difficult to define. Suffice to say that I did toy for a few years with romantic models of divine origin but rejected them in the belief that Gaia, the organism that is all life on Earth, is not God but where we get this sense of God from. But it is just an organism, a beautiful, complicated one, but not the creator of the Universe.

Namaste Tao,

I think you've done quite well at creating a definition if not defining. For me oneness doesn't begin or end with Gaia or the Universe. If Gaia were an organism unto itself. Is there another for Mars, and another for... Is it a part of, reliant on, or a parasite of our solar system? Gaia is nice to me, but part of our human inherent arrogance (like national pride or race relations or solar mass, me, me, me, me) our need to belong to the best, and justify it any way possible. But the day we understand that sending dumpsters into space is still crapping in our own backyard and will eventually stink up the place to the point we can't live here. The day we realize when we are scratching our left arm with our right hand, that blood is the same that recently traversed through the right hand, and that extends beyond our comprehension. I don't know whether that will be the day it all collapses and starts over or the day we collectively realize heaven has been on/in earth, with us wherever we are in the universe all along.

 

[flowperson]

Looking at this design issue thingy from the micro aspect instead of the macro, we find some of the same issues manifesting themselvs in this "technological age".

If we can't collectively operate what we are technologically designing, then just what is this intelligent design issue about ? I would say that it's mostly about creating sensible boundary conditions and the means to interface across boundaries in a sensible and understandable manner.

flow....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/science/18tier.html?ref=science