| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Therion Ware" |
| Date: |
31 Jan 2005 11:19:01 AM |
| Object: |
ID: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
As I understand it, and may well be wrong, IDers refuse to speculate
of the nature of the supposed designer. If that's the case, does
anyone know why that is?
I would have thought that if one subscribes to the idea of ID, there's
lots of conclusions one could come to about the designer:
- thinks big
- is patient
- likes beetles
to name but three implicative characteristics of the supposed
designer.
But, letting my imagination run - if not wild - then out and about a
bit on a day trip to Yarmouth: why do we make or do things?
As far as I see it (and in short form) there are two basic reasons we
- humans - make or do things: either we want to accomplish an end - if
we build a bridge it's to enable us to get from one side to the other
easily, for example. But the other reason we do things is to see what
will happen and improve our understanding: we conduct experiments
because without the experiment we *cannot* know what we wish to know.
Suppose that the nature of our universe is such that there are some
things that are in principle unpredictable in detail and the designer
is conducting an experiment to see how it goes and learn things that
it could know in no other way? Presumably by implication it can't
fiddle with the ongoing experiment.
What would that say about the designer? If nothing else it would
certainly kill the link between ID and certain forms of religion and
at best imply a form of deism, which like agnosticism is little more
than shame faced atheism.
Mind you, if the universe is the Ph.D analogue of "something," I
sometimes get the feeling it's going to fail, and then what of us if
it does?
Your thoughts welcome!
.
|
|
| User: "U.O" |
|
| Title: Re: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
31 Jan 2005 07:21:52 PM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:vn2sv05hq199dvo32k91o88argnlkeo8bp@4ax.com...
As I understand it, and may well be wrong, IDers refuse to speculate
of the nature of the supposed designer. If that's the case, does
anyone know why that is?
I would have thought that if one subscribes to the idea of ID, there's
lots of conclusions one could come to about the designer:
- thinks big
- is patient
- likes beetles
to name but three implicative characteristics of the supposed
designer.
He also likes waste, lots and lots of waste. We're talking about a designer
who would create an entire universe, unknown billions of light years across,
filled with absurd amounts of junk, only to provide an infinitesimal
fraction of a speck of dust (Earth) with a few pretty lights in the night
sky. Even though something like this would have worked just as well:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/zetcos08.gif
Is the Bad Parable contest still open? Here's my entry, anyway.
Once upon a time, there was a famous inventor who set out to design a paper
clip. How should the ultimate paper clip look like? Obviously there would
have to be some wire, but what else? Something was missing. For days (6
days, to be exact), The Inventor struggled. Finally, the design was
complete. The Inventor was pleased and said to the Head of Marketing: "Make
it sell".
The Head of Marketing looked upon the design. Frowning, he found himself in
a bit of a dilemma. He was not a technical person at all, and it was not his
place to question the unquestionable genious of The Inventor. Still, he
somehow found the courage to say:
"The metal wire is good, and it bends in ways that are both functional and
pleasing to the eye. But what is the purpose of attaching 200 kilometers of
steel beams to the paper clip? And will 263 cubic kilometers of solid,
reinforced concrete not be awfully expensive? And are you sure 37,000
stuffed kangaroos is not a bit superfluous?"
The Inventor was used to this. None of his coworkers were able to grasp the
vastness of his genious, and he knew from experience that being offended was
probably a waste of time. Therefore, The Inventor put on a benevolent smile
and gave his standard reply to such silly questions: "I work in mysterious
ways. Now, sell it."
Sadly, nobody bought the ultimate paper clip. "Too much overhead", one
potential customer complained. "Is this a joke?" said others. "A bunch of
drunk monkeys trapped in a junk yard, equipped with hand grenades, could
invent a more reasonable paper clip" one annoyed non-customer said.
The Inventor was not pleased. So he invented a giant, 96 kilometer wide
rubber squid that would crush all potential customers who doubted him.
Unfortunately it collapsed under its own weight and killed a large number of
people who didn't even know about the ultimate paper clip.
But, letting my imagination run - if not wild - then out and about a
bit on a day trip to Yarmouth: why do we make or do things?
As far as I see it (and in short form) there are two basic reasons we
- humans - make or do things: either we want to accomplish an end - if
we build a bridge it's to enable us to get from one side to the other
easily, for example. But the other reason we do things is to see what
will happen and improve our understanding: we conduct experiments
because without the experiment we *cannot* know what we wish to know.
Suppose that the nature of our universe is such that there are some
things that are in principle unpredictable in detail and the designer
is conducting an experiment to see how it goes and learn things that
it could know in no other way? Presumably by implication it can't
fiddle with the ongoing experiment.
What would that say about the designer? If nothing else it would
certainly kill the link between ID and certain forms of religion and
at best imply a form of deism, which like agnosticism is little more
than shame faced atheism.
Mind you, if the universe is the Ph.D analogue of "something," I
sometimes get the feeling it's going to fail, and then what of us if
it does?
Your thoughts welcome!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Dworetsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
31 Jan 2005 07:38:19 PM |
|
|
"U.O" <km_anka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WxvLd.904$Mw3.464@amstwist00...
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:vn2sv05hq199dvo32k91o88argnlkeo8bp@4ax.com...
As I understand it, and may well be wrong, IDers refuse to speculate
of the nature of the supposed designer. If that's the case, does
anyone know why that is?
I would have thought that if one subscribes to the idea of ID, there's
lots of conclusions one could come to about the designer:
- thinks big
- is patient
- likes beetles
to name but three implicative characteristics of the supposed
designer.
I can think of two and only two possibilities:
1. The intelligent designer is some sort of alien/natural being who likes
seeding planets with life, or who guides life in channels that please the
lifeform in ways we might not understand (think Raelians, but not too hard
or you may get a headache). For example, it likes designing flagella and/or
commanding its followers to wear white jumpsuits and lots of makeup.
In this case, if the ID is just another living being, who designed the ID?
2. The intelligent designer is a supernatural being, for whom physics and
biological laws do not apply.
So ultimately, the question of the intelligent designer has to come down to
there being a supernatural being. A supernatural being is not a proper
subject of study or debate by science, which can only discuss, measure, and
analyse natural phenomena.
He also likes waste, lots and lots of waste. We're talking about a
designer
who would create an entire universe, unknown billions of light years
across,
filled with absurd amounts of junk, only to provide an infinitesimal
fraction of a speck of dust (Earth) with a few pretty lights in the night
sky. Even though something like this would have worked just as well:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/zetcos08.gif
Is the Bad Parable contest still open? Here's my entry, anyway.
Once upon a time, there was a famous inventor who set out to design a
paper
clip. How should the ultimate paper clip look like? Obviously there would
have to be some wire, but what else? Something was missing. For days (6
days, to be exact), The Inventor struggled. Finally, the design was
complete. The Inventor was pleased and said to the Head of Marketing:
"Make
it sell".
The Head of Marketing looked upon the design. Frowning, he found himself
in
a bit of a dilemma. He was not a technical person at all, and it was not
his
place to question the unquestionable genious of The Inventor. Still, he
somehow found the courage to say:
"The metal wire is good, and it bends in ways that are both functional and
pleasing to the eye. But what is the purpose of attaching 200 kilometers
of
steel beams to the paper clip? And will 263 cubic kilometers of solid,
reinforced concrete not be awfully expensive? And are you sure 37,000
stuffed kangaroos is not a bit superfluous?"
The Inventor was used to this. None of his coworkers were able to grasp
the
vastness of his genious, and he knew from experience that being offended
was
probably a waste of time. Therefore, The Inventor put on a benevolent
smile
and gave his standard reply to such silly questions: "I work in mysterious
ways. Now, sell it."
Sadly, nobody bought the ultimate paper clip. "Too much overhead", one
potential customer complained. "Is this a joke?" said others. "A bunch of
drunk monkeys trapped in a junk yard, equipped with hand grenades, could
invent a more reasonable paper clip" one annoyed non-customer said.
The Inventor was not pleased. So he invented a giant, 96 kilometer wide
rubber squid that would crush all potential customers who doubted him.
Unfortunately it collapsed under its own weight and killed a large number
of
people who didn't even know about the ultimate paper clip.
But, letting my imagination run - if not wild - then out and about a
bit on a day trip to Yarmouth: why do we make or do things?
As far as I see it (and in short form) there are two basic reasons we
- humans - make or do things: either we want to accomplish an end - if
we build a bridge it's to enable us to get from one side to the other
easily, for example. But the other reason we do things is to see what
will happen and improve our understanding: we conduct experiments
because without the experiment we *cannot* know what we wish to know.
Suppose that the nature of our universe is such that there are some
things that are in principle unpredictable in detail and the designer
is conducting an experiment to see how it goes and learn things that
it could know in no other way? Presumably by implication it can't
fiddle with the ongoing experiment.
What would that say about the designer? If nothing else it would
certainly kill the link between ID and certain forms of religion and
at best imply a form of deism, which like agnosticism is little more
than shame faced atheism.
Mind you, if the universe is the Ph.D analogue of "something," I
sometimes get the feeling it's going to fail, and then what of us if
it does?
Your thoughts welcome!
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
31 Jan 2005 09:46:18 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell said:
If it isn't, then they should re-open it. That was very good
No it isn't, it sucks, because it's the tendency of the "junk" that
defines the need for humans, whereas, concrete and steel do not define
the need for paper-clips.
~~
U.O wrote:
Once upon a time, there was a famous inventor who set out to design
a paper
clip...
.... that was actually a Jackhammer/Torch that worked very well when it
came to the breakdown of the "junk" in our universe, which, in-turn,
served the duel purpose of feeding the "Paper-Clip/Jackhammer-Torch"
and that 'kept it going'...
.... so the Paper-Clip/Jackhammer-Torch sold like hotcakes... and all
the world rejoiced at finding that god is actually the Second Law of
Themodynamics acting through the constraints of an imperfect world to
isolate its forces in order to manifest a means to enable the expansion
process to continue as efficiently as possible.
.... and everyone lived a little wiser therafter...
As a side note:
Beetles too expressed emergent properties that enabled them to do well
when it came to the game of "breaking-down' "junk"... but they weren't
nearly as * UNIVERSALLY EFFICIENT * (weak AP)... at it, because they
don't have the same degree of freedom that human-intelligence enables,
nor were they as * SPECIALLY EFFICIENT * (strong AP)... since they
can't breakdown "junk" in a manner that will isolate the release
high-energy photons... which make particles from vacuum energy...
thereby affecting the symmetry of the universe...
so... god let them eat *****... ;)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
31 Jan 2005 07:28:31 PM |
|
|
In article <WxvLd.904$Mw3.464@amstwist00> "U.O" <km_anka@hotmail.com> writes:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:vn2sv05hq199dvo32k91o88argnlkeo8bp@4ax.com...
As I understand it, and may well be wrong, IDers refuse to speculate
of the nature of the supposed designer. If that's the case, does
anyone know why that is?
I would have thought that if one subscribes to the idea of ID, there's
lots of conclusions one could come to about the designer:
- thinks big
- is patient
- likes beetles
to name but three implicative characteristics of the supposed
designer.
He also likes waste, lots and lots of waste. We're talking about a designer
who would create an entire universe, unknown billions of light years across,
filled with absurd amounts of junk, only to provide an infinitesimal
fraction of a speck of dust (Earth) with a few pretty lights in the night
sky. Even though something like this would have worked just as well:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/zetcos08.gif
Is the Bad Parable contest still open? Here's my entry, anyway.
Once upon a time, there was a famous inventor who set out to design a paper
clip. How should the ultimate paper clip look like? Obviously there would
have to be some wire, but what else? Something was missing. For days (6
days, to be exact), The Inventor struggled. Finally, the design was
complete. The Inventor was pleased and said to the Head of Marketing: "Make
it sell".
The Head of Marketing looked upon the design. Frowning, he found himself in
a bit of a dilemma. He was not a technical person at all, and it was not his
place to question the unquestionable genious of The Inventor. Still, he
somehow found the courage to say:
"The metal wire is good, and it bends in ways that are both functional and
pleasing to the eye. But what is the purpose of attaching 200 kilometers of
steel beams to the paper clip? And will 263 cubic kilometers of solid,
reinforced concrete not be awfully expensive? And are you sure 37,000
stuffed kangaroos is not a bit superfluous?"
The Inventor was used to this. None of his coworkers were able to grasp the
vastness of his genious, and he knew from experience that being offended was
probably a waste of time. Therefore, The Inventor put on a benevolent smile
and gave his standard reply to such silly questions: "I work in mysterious
ways. Now, sell it."
Sadly, nobody bought the ultimate paper clip. "Too much overhead", one
potential customer complained. "Is this a joke?" said others. "A bunch of
drunk monkeys trapped in a junk yard, equipped with hand grenades, could
invent a more reasonable paper clip" one annoyed non-customer said.
The Inventor was not pleased. So he invented a giant, 96 kilometer wide
rubber squid that would crush all potential customers who doubted him.
Unfortunately it collapsed under its own weight and killed a large number of
people who didn't even know about the ultimate paper clip.
If it isn't, then they should re-open it. That was very good.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
31 Jan 2005 11:19:43 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:21:52 +0100, "U.O" <km_anka@hotmail.com> wrote:
As I understand it, and may well be wrong, IDers refuse to speculate
of the nature of the supposed designer. If that's the case, does
anyone know why that is?
I would have thought that if one subscribes to the idea of ID, there's
lots of conclusions one could come to about the designer:
- thinks big
- is patient
- likes beetles
to name but three implicative characteristics of the supposed
designer.
Then again why would your concept of conclusions be more than a ragtag of
misadventures into the impossible arena of understanding God's intentions?
He also likes waste, lots and lots of waste. We're talking about a designer
who would create an entire universe, unknown billions of light years across,
filled with absurd amounts of junk, only to provide an infinitesimal
fraction of a speck of dust (Earth) with a few pretty lights in the night
sky.
Oh, I get it. So you think the earth is the center of the universe. Hmmmm, I
believe that one is already taken.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clothaire" |
|
| Title: Re: ID: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
01 Feb 2005 07:01:52 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:19:01 +0000, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
As I understand it, and may well be wrong, IDers refuse to speculate
of the nature of the supposed designer. If that's the case, does
anyone know why that is?
Yes. Everyone is suppose to know who the designer is. This is a fine
exmple of fundy implied circular reasoning.
I would have thought that if one subscribes to the idea of ID, there's
lots of conclusions one could come to about the designer:
- thinks big
- is patient
- likes beetles
to name but three implicative characteristics of the supposed
designer.
But, letting my imagination run - if not wild - then out and about a
bit on a day trip to Yarmouth: why do we make or do things?
As far as I see it (and in short form) there are two basic reasons we
- humans - make or do things: either we want to accomplish an end - if
we build a bridge it's to enable us to get from one side to the other
easily, for example. But the other reason we do things is to see what
will happen and improve our understanding: we conduct experiments
because without the experiment we *cannot* know what we wish to know.
Suppose that the nature of our universe is such that there are some
things that are in principle unpredictable in detail and the designer
is conducting an experiment to see how it goes and learn things that
it could know in no other way? Presumably by implication it can't
fiddle with the ongoing experiment.
What would that say about the designer? If nothing else it would
certainly kill the link between ID and certain forms of religion and
at best imply a form of deism, which like agnosticism is little more
than shame faced atheism.
Mind you, if the universe is the Ph.D analogue of "something," I
sometimes get the feeling it's going to fail, and then what of us if
it does?
Your thoughts welcome!
Clothaire #1392
"Christianity has such a contemptible opinion of human
nature that it does not believe a man can tell the truth
unless frightened by a belief in God. No lower opinion
of the human race has ever been expressed."
[Robert Green Ingersoll]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: ID: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
31 Jan 2005 04:31:59 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:19:01 +0000, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
As I understand it, and may well be wrong, IDers refuse to speculate
of the nature of the supposed designer. If that's the case, does
anyone know why that is?
political reasons. saying it's god would prevent it from being taught
in schools.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: ID: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
31 Jan 2005 01:16:15 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
As I understand it, and may well be wrong, IDers refuse to speculate
of the nature of the supposed designer. If that's the case, does
anyone know why that is?
Because ID is just an attempt to give creationism political cover. The
only ID supporters who don't think "the" designer is their own concept
of God is the Raelians.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: ID: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
31 Jan 2005 09:56:07 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
As I understand it, and may well be wrong, IDers refuse to speculate
of the nature of the supposed designer. If that's the case, does
anyone know why that is?
I would have thought that if one subscribes to the idea of ID, there's
lots of conclusions one could come to about the designer:
- thinks big
- is patient
- likes beetles
to name but three implicative characteristics of the supposed
designer.
But, letting my imagination run - if not wild - then out and about a
bit on a day trip to Yarmouth: why do we make or do things?
As far as I see it (and in short form) there are two basic reasons we
- humans - make or do things: either we want to accomplish an end - if
we build a bridge it's to enable us to get from one side to the other
easily, for example. But the other reason we do things is to see what
will happen and improve our understanding: we conduct experiments
because without the experiment we *cannot* know what we wish to know.
Suppose that the nature of our universe is such that there are some
things that are in principle unpredictable in detail and the designer
is conducting an experiment to see how it goes and learn things that
it could know in no other way? Presumably by implication it can't
fiddle with the ongoing experiment.
What would that say about the designer? If nothing else it would
certainly kill the link between ID and certain forms of religion and
at best imply a form of deism, which like agnosticism is little more
than shame faced atheism.
Mind you, if the universe is the Ph.D analogue of "something," I
sometimes get the feeling it's going to fail, and then what of us if
it does?
Your thoughts welcome!
My 3.5 Australian cents:
The designer likes lots of big empty spaces. It likes hydrogen. It likes
wasteful processes by which a few refined elements, or a few successful
individuals, are formed at the expense of a multitude of others. Its
idea of great design is to tack on new functions and allow old functions
to gradually fade away and become junk or noise. It is fonder of single
celled organisms than multicelled organisms, of simple organisms than
complex organisms, of no particular sexual system or behaviour (up to
and including what would, in a human context, be called rape or
pedophilia or homosexuality or orgies). It likes deserts. The designer
likes redundancy, but not enough to work all the time. The designer is a
government employee for whom half-assed is good enough. It favours
survival of the barely adequate rather than optimality. It is slow to
respond to change, and when it does, it has no thought for the future.
This means it often ends up in a deadend and has to abandon the design.
The designer is not a deep thinker, but thinks long, slow thoughts.
All this, on the assumption that it achieves its designs. If it is not
very good at implementing them, then all bets are off. We can't know
what an incompetent designer thought by its actual designs...
My conjecture is that the designer is lazy. I have what I call "lazy
manager theory" [tm, all rights pending somewhere] in which the ultimate
manager is one that roughly assigns tasks to its subordinates, and then
sits back and watches the processes for which it is responsible evolve
by themselves (leaving the manager plenty of time to read its favourite
newsgroups). Intervention is done only when absolutely necessary, and
then only by guiding rather than fiat. God is a lazy manager. It is the
most optimal way overall to achieve positive work places and the best
outcomes. Sure, it looks wasteful in a particular case, but too tight an
oversight leads to the manager micromanaging and interfering with the
tasks that are really essential.
--
John S. Wilkins AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
And John said, "Let there be lunch", and there was lunch.
And John tasted that it was good.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ID: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
31 Jan 2005 10:24:17 PM |
|
|
John Wilkins wrote:
It is the most optimal way overall to achieve
positive work places and the best outcomes.
Laziness defines the "efficiency" half of "entropic efficiency", which
keeps the system from running-away, thereby enabling a more-even
distribution of energy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: ID: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
31 Jan 2005 10:49:07 PM |
|
|
<island5@earthlink.net> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
It is the most optimal way overall to achieve
positive work places and– the best outcomes.
Laziness defines the "efficiency" half of "entropic efficiency", which
keeps the system from running-away, thereby enabling a more-even
distribution of energy.
Hey if there's a quasiscientific justification for my theory, that's so
much the better...
--
John S. Wilkins AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
And John said, "Let there be lunch", and there was lunch.
And John tasted that it was good.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ID: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
31 Jan 2005 11:12:43 PM |
|
|
John Wilkins wrote:
Hey if there's a quasiscientific justification
for my theory, that's so much the better...
Hey if "quasiscientific justification" flies with the mainstream better
than the "teleologic" does... then I'm all for that!... ;)
I like your theory made from honest observations because its
necessarily covered by the "quasi science".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ID: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
31 Jan 2005 03:49:49 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware wrote:
As I understand it, and may well be wrong, IDers refuse to speculate
of the nature of the supposed designer.
No. In legal and educational contexts, they systematically evade
the issue of the supposed designer, and do their utmost to hide
the fact they they mean the Christian god, in order to circumvent
church-state separation.
But when "preaching to the choir", they are quite open about this
"Wink, wink, nod, nod, you'all know who we really mean, even though
we're not allowed to say it out loud."
ID is stealth creationism, an intentionally deceptive tactic
to get around the 1st amendment and sneak in their god into
school curricula through the backdoor.
If that's the case, does
anyone know why that is?
Because open creationism failed, both academically and in the courts.
I would have thought that if one subscribes to the idea of ID,
there's
lots of conclusions one could come to about the designer:
- thinks big
- is patient
- likes beetles
to name but three implicative characteristics of the supposed
designer.
But, letting my imagination run - if not wild - then out and about a
bit on a day trip to Yarmouth: why do we make or do things?
As far as I see it (and in short form) there are two basic reasons we
- humans - make or do things: either we want to accomplish an end -
if
we build a bridge it's to enable us to get from one side to the other
easily, for example. But the other reason we do things is to see
what
will happen and improve our understanding: we conduct experiments
because without the experiment we *cannot* know what we wish to know.
Or because experiments are sometimes easier than working it through
theoretically, even in cases where analytic solutions are possible in
principle.
Suppose that the nature of our universe is such that there are some
things that are in principle unpredictable in detail and the designer
is conducting an experiment to see how it goes and learn things that
it could know in no other way? Presumably by implication it can't
fiddle with the ongoing experiment.
Finally a version of creationism that's actually consistent with
known facts about the universe.
What would that say about the designer?
Not omniscient.
Not running the universe for our benefit.
Tells us nothing about morals or the meaning of life
-- but then, what religion really does? Cf. my sig below.
Doesn't really need to be supernatural -- aliens
with the capacity to manipulate spacetime and form
"big bang seeds" fit the bill.
If nothing else it would
certainly kill the link between ID and certain forms of religion and
at best imply a form of deism, which like agnosticism is little more
than shame faced atheism.
Mind you, if the universe is the Ph.D analogue of "something," I
sometimes get the feeling it's going to fail, and then what of us if
it does?
Exercise for the grad students here:
What fraction of your experiments typically fail?
Exercise for the gods here:
What fraction of your created universes typically fail?
Your thoughts welcome!
A grad student isn't _supposed_ to interfere with his
creation -- but what grad student never ever plays with
his guinea pigs? A lot of traditional religion is consistent
with a grad student having fun.
Of course, traditional religion is also consistent with
being a mind virus without metaphysical implications.
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
-------------------------------------------------
Humans breed pigs for a purpose -- making bacon.
Does that make the pig's life more meaningful
_for_the_pig_ ?
-------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ronald Dean" |
|
| Title: Re: ID: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
01 Feb 2005 04:23:32 AM |
|
|
<lsj@hlk.hj.se> wrote in message
news:1107186589.642206.310250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Therion Ware wrote:
As I understand it, and may well be wrong, IDers refuse to speculate
of the nature of the supposed designer.
No. In legal and educational contexts, they systematically evade
the issue of the supposed designer, and do their utmost to hide
the fact they they mean the Christian god, in order to circumvent
church-state separation.
Why is it necessary to identify a designer? If one is able to recognize
design, that in of itself should suffice. This, it seems to me could be
subject to scientific testing, however, the *designer* is plainly a matter
of personal opinion and not subject to falsification.
But when "preaching to the choir", they are quite open about this
"Wink, wink, nod, nod, you'all know who we really mean, even though
we're not allowed to say it out loud."
But this would be _only_ one's own personal opinion.
ID is stealth creationism, an intentionally deceptive tactic
to get around the 1st amendment and sneak in their god into
school curricula through the backdoor.
This too is a personal opinion.
If that's the case, does
anyone know why that is?
Because open creationism failed, both academically and in the courts.
I would have thought that if one subscribes to the idea of ID,
there's
lots of conclusions one could come to about the designer:
- thinks big
- is patient
- likes beetles
to name but three implicative characteristics of the supposed
designer.
But, letting my imagination run - if not wild - then out and about a
bit on a day trip to Yarmouth: why do we make or do things?
As far as I see it (and in short form) there are two basic reasons we
- humans - make or do things: either we want to accomplish an end -
if
we build a bridge it's to enable us to get from one side to the other
easily, for example. But the other reason we do things is to see
what
will happen and improve our understanding: we conduct experiments
because without the experiment we *cannot* know what we wish to know.
Or because experiments are sometimes easier than working it through
theoretically, even in cases where analytic solutions are possible in
principle.
Suppose that the nature of our universe is such that there are some
things that are in principle unpredictable in detail and the designer
is conducting an experiment to see how it goes and learn things that
it could know in no other way? Presumably by implication it can't
fiddle with the ongoing experiment.
Finally a version of creationism that's actually consistent with
known facts about the universe.
What would that say about the designer?
Not omniscient.
Not running the universe for our benefit.
Tells us nothing about morals or the meaning of life
-- but then, what religion really does? Cf. my sig below.
Doesn't really need to be supernatural -- aliens
with the capacity to manipulate spacetime and form
"big bang seeds" fit the bill.
If nothing else it would
certainly kill the link between ID and certain forms of religion and
at best imply a form of deism, which like agnosticism is little more
than shame faced atheism.
Mind you, if the universe is the Ph.D analogue of "something," I
sometimes get the feeling it's going to fail, and then what of us if
it does?
Exercise for the grad students here:
What fraction of your experiments typically fail?
Exercise for the gods here:
What fraction of your created universes typically fail?
Your thoughts welcome!
A grad student isn't _supposed_ to interfere with his
creation -- but what grad student never ever plays with
his guinea pigs? A lot of traditional religion is consistent
with a grad student having fun.
Even viewing at his creation, the grad student effects the
outcome. See: Schrödinger's Cat, by John Gribbin.
Of course, traditional religion is also consistent with
being a mind virus without metaphysical implications.
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
-------------------------------------------------
Humans breed pigs for a purpose -- making bacon.
Does that make the pig's life more meaningful
_for_the_pig_ ?
-------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: ID: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
02 Feb 2005 05:52:08 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 23:23:32 -0500, "Ronald Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Why is it necessary to identify a designer?
To determine whether the universe is designed. If it was designed
there has to be a designer.
If one is able to recognize design
The only way one can do that, wrt a universe, is to compare it to a
known designed universe and a known undesigned universe - neither one
of which IDers happen to have.
This, it seems to me could be subject to scientific testing
"The universe had to be designed by an intelligence"? How, other than
by proving that such an intelligent designer never existed, which
would take a god to prove.
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: ID: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
02 Feb 2005 01:17:27 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 23:23:32 -0500, "Ronald Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<lsj@hlk.hj.se> wrote in message
news:1107186589.642206.310250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Therion Ware wrote:
As I understand it, and may well be wrong, IDers refuse to speculate
of the nature of the supposed designer.
No. In legal and educational contexts, they systematically evade
the issue of the supposed designer, and do their utmost to hide
the fact they they mean the Christian god, in order to circumvent
church-state separation.
Why is it necessary to identify a designer?
The search, is for the source of life, for *how* it began, where, is irrelevant.
Intelligent design does not give us the source of life.
Intelligent design only gives an explanation (I use the word in it's loosest
sense) for the forms that life on our world, has.
It does not tell us where that life came from.
Without identifying the designer, and where *it* came from, we are no nearer to
knowing HOW life in the universe started.
Even if it were proven to be true, ID, does not answer anything, it simply
means that we have to look farther afield.
The search is then for the designer, and whatever designed *it.
And so, ad infinitum.
To assert that the designer is the Judeo/xtian god, or any other god, for that
matter, is no help, it is just a cop out, for those too lazy, or too scared, to
think.
If one is able to recognize
design, that in of itself should suffice.
How do you recognise design?
This, it seems to me could be
subject to scientific testing, however, the *designer* is plainly a matter
of personal opinion and not subject to falsification.
Not so. If we accept that life on Earth, was designed, then this is NOT, where
life began, and it is the origin of the designer, that we seek
You have two choices. #1 There was am original, undesigned, uncreated, life
form.
Or #2 You have an infinite regression of designers
Oh, there is a third. #3. You can have special pleading. The trouble is, there
is not a single scientist in the field, who would accept #2 or #3.
But when "preaching to the choir", they are quite open about this
"Wink, wink, nod, nod, you'all know who we really mean, even though
we're not allowed to say it out loud."
But this would be _only_ one's own personal opinion.
Not really. The cultural back ground of the vast majority of people living in
the western world, forces that opinion on them. It is disingenious, if nor down
right dishonest, to attempt to deny this.
ID is stealth creationism, an intentionally deceptive tactic
to get around the 1st amendment and sneak in their god into
school curricula through the backdoor.
This too is a personal opinion.
That does not mean that it is wrong, and the vigor with which the religious
reich tries to force it into your classrooms, indicates that it is more than a
"personal opinion"
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ID: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
31 Jan 2005 07:39:03 PM |
|
|
Ronald Dean wrote:
Why is it necessary to identify a designer? If one is able to
recognize
design, that in of itself should suffice. This, it seems to me could
be
subject to scientific testing, however, the *designer* is plainly a
matter
of personal opinion and not subject to falsification.
One can "recognize" a human face in the patterns of light and darkness
on the moon, but that doesn't mean the moon is designed to look like a
human face. You can't reliably deduce design on the basis of
"apparent" pattern, form, or function, at least not scientifically.
You can do so intuitively and piously, but that's not something that
really belongs in the domain of science, and vice versa.
But when "preaching to the choir", they are quite open about this
"Wink, wink, nod, nod, you'all know who we really mean, even though
we're not allowed to say it out loud."
But this would be _only_ one's own personal opinion.
That pretty much sums up the whole ID movement itself ;) In order to
prove design scientifically, you must establish not only that some
particular structure serves a particular function, but that there
exists some cognitive goal which the given function was intended to
fulfill. That in turn requires that we know the Designer(s) exist and
that we know what their design goals and intentions were, so that we
can compare actual function to intended function and measure the
correlation. One may be of the opinion that one knows that a Designer
exists, and that one knows what this Designer's goals and intentions
were, but to infer from such opinions that the functions are evidence
of a Designer--that's tautology.
ID is stealth creationism, an intentionally deceptive tactic
to get around the 1st amendment and sneak in their god into
school curricula through the backdoor.
This too is a personal opinion.
Then why do ID'ers consistently refer to The Designer in the masculine
singular? If function implies design, and design implies a designer,
then conflicting functions imply conflicting designs, suggesting at
least the possibility of multiple Designers. Yet you won't read
anything from the Discovery Institute suggesting that there is
scientific evidence that life on earth comes from multiple, conflicting
Creators. If the ID crowd is not using Christian monotheism as their
underlying principle, why the systematic absence of any plausible
hypotheses that fail to conform to Christian theology?
m
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ID: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
01 Feb 2005 06:55:31 AM |
|
|
Ronald Dean wrote:
<lsj@hlk.hj.se> wrote in message
news:1107186589.642206.310250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Therion Ware wrote:
As I understand it, and may well be wrong, IDers refuse to
speculate
of the nature of the supposed designer.
No. In legal and educational contexts, they systematically evade
the issue of the supposed designer, and do their utmost to hide
the fact they they mean the Christian god, in order to circumvent
church-state separation.
Why is it necessary to identify a designer? If one is able to
recognize
design, that in of itself should suffice. This, it seems to me could
be
subject to scientific testing, however, the *designer* is plainly a
matter
of personal opinion and not subject to falsification.
Two points:
* This kind of abstract design inference is not the actual intent
of the IDiots, it's just their official cover.
* If ID is regarded as a legitimate academic exercise (as opposed
to what the IDiots are doing), it would be even more sterile and
vacuous than it is if it isn't used to make inferences about
the designer.
But when "preaching to the choir", they are quite open about this
"Wink, wink, nod, nod, you'all know who we really mean, even though
we're not allowed to say it out loud."
But this would be _only_ one's own personal opinion.
The IDiots openly admit that their purpose is to get
this personal opinion of theirs accepted as science:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
ID is stealth creationism, an intentionally deceptive tactic
to get around the 1st amendment and sneak in their god into
school curricula through the backdoor.
This too is a personal opinion.
Is it, now? See the link above.
Quoting from that link, concerning the goals of the ID movement:
"Governing Goals
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral,
cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic
understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."
[snip]
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
-------------------------------------------------
Humans breed pigs for a purpose -- making bacon.
Does that make the pig's life more meaningful
_for_the_pig_ ?
-------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ID: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
31 Jan 2005 01:55:23 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware wrote:
As I understand it, and may well be wrong, IDers refuse to speculate
of the nature of the supposed designer. If that's the case, does
anyone know why that is?
I would have thought that if one subscribes to the idea of ID,
there's
lots of conclusions one could come to about the designer:
- thinks big
- is patient
- likes beetles
to name but three implicative characteristics of the supposed
designer.
You've left out a big one: if function implies design and design
implies a designer, then conflicting functions imply conflicting
designs, which imply conflicting designers. Predator vs. prey, disease
vs. immune response, etc, all demonstrate the overwhelming amount of
conflict in life on earth. If we're going to discern the nature of the
designer based on the designs of nature, we should be considering the
nature of the designers, plural.
But, letting my imagination run - if not wild - then out and about a
bit on a day trip to Yarmouth: why do we make or do things?
As far as I see it (and in short form) there are two basic reasons we
- humans - make or do things: either we want to accomplish an end -
if
we build a bridge it's to enable us to get from one side to the other
easily, for example. But the other reason we do things is to see
what
will happen and improve our understanding: we conduct experiments
because without the experiment we *cannot* know what we wish to know.
Suppose that the nature of our universe is such that there are some
things that are in principle unpredictable in detail and the designer
is conducting an experiment to see how it goes and learn things that
it could know in no other way? Presumably by implication it can't
fiddle with the ongoing experiment.
What would that say about the designer? If nothing else it would
certainly kill the link between ID and certain forms of religion and
at best imply a form of deism, which like agnosticism is little more
than shame faced atheism.
Mind you, if the universe is the Ph.D analogue of "something," I
sometimes get the feeling it's going to fail, and then what of us if
it does?
Maybe the universe isn't so much an experiment as a program being
implemented under the auspices of a committee with conflicting goals,
ulterior motives, and incompatible agendas. ;)
m
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ID: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
31 Jan 2005 02:02:10 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware wrote:
As I understand it, and may well be wrong, IDers refuse to speculate
of the nature of the supposed designer. If that's the case, does
anyone know why that is?
I would have thought that if one subscribes to the idea of ID,
there's
lots of conclusions one could come to about the designer:
- thinks big
- is patient
- likes beetles
to name but three implicative characteristics of the supposed
designer.
You've left out a big one: if function implies design and design
implies a designer, then conflicting functions imply conflicting
designs, which imply conflicting designers. Predator vs. prey, disease
vs. immune response, etc, all demonstrate the overwhelming amount of
conflict in life on earth. If we're going to discern the nature of the
designer based on the designs of nature, we should be considering the
nature of the designers, plural.
But, letting my imagination run - if not wild - then out and about a
bit on a day trip to Yarmouth: why do we make or do things?
As far as I see it (and in short form) there are two basic reasons we
- humans - make or do things: either we want to accomplish an end -
if
we build a bridge it's to enable us to get from one side to the other
easily, for example. But the other reason we do things is to see
what
will happen and improve our understanding: we conduct experiments
because without the experiment we *cannot* know what we wish to know.
Suppose that the nature of our universe is such that there are some
things that are in principle unpredictable in detail and the designer
is conducting an experiment to see how it goes and learn things that
it could know in no other way? Presumably by implication it can't
fiddle with the ongoing experiment.
What would that say about the designer? If nothing else it would
certainly kill the link between ID and certain forms of religion and
at best imply a form of deism, which like agnosticism is little more
than shame faced atheism.
Mind you, if the universe is the Ph.D analogue of "something," I
sometimes get the feeling it's going to fail, and then what of us if
it does?
Maybe the universe isn't so much an experiment as a program being
implemented under the auspices of a committee with conflicting goals,
ulterior motives, and incompatible agendas. ;)
m
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ID: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
31 Jan 2005 02:37:19 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Dang, Google told me 3 times that it didn't go thru and that I had to
try again! Sorry for the wasted bandwith *blush*
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ID: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
31 Jan 2005 02:05:00 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware wrote:
As I understand it, and may well be wrong, IDers refuse to speculate
of the nature of the supposed designer. If that's the case, does
anyone know why that is?
I would have thought that if one subscribes to the idea of ID,
there's
lots of conclusions one could come to about the designer:
- thinks big
- is patient
- likes beetles
to name but three implicative characteristics of the supposed
designer.
You've left out a big one: if function implies design and design
implies a designer, then conflicting functions imply conflicting
designs, which imply conflicting designers. Predator vs. prey, disease
vs. immune response, etc, all demonstrate the overwhelming amount of
conflict in life on earth. If we're going to discern the nature of the
designer based on the designs of nature, we should be considering the
nature of the designers, plural.
But, letting my imagination run - if not wild - then out and about a
bit on a day trip to Yarmouth: why do we make or do things?
As far as I see it (and in short form) there are two basic reasons we
- humans - make or do things: either we want to accomplish an end -
if
we build a bridge it's to enable us to get from one side to the other
easily, for example. But the other reason we do things is to see
what
will happen and improve our understanding: we conduct experiments
because without the experiment we *cannot* know what we wish to know.
Suppose that the nature of our universe is such that there are some
things that are in principle unpredictable in detail and the designer
is conducting an experiment to see how it goes and learn things that
it could know in no other way? Presumably by implication it can't
fiddle with the ongoing experiment.
What would that say about the designer? If nothing else it would
certainly kill the link between ID and certain forms of religion and
at best imply a form of deism, which like agnosticism is little more
than shame faced atheism.
Mind you, if the universe is the Ph.D analogue of "something," I
sometimes get the feeling it's going to fail, and then what of us if
it does?
Maybe the universe isn't so much an experiment as a program being
implemented under the auspices of a committee with conflicting goals,
ulterior motives, and incompatible agendas. ;)
m
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ID: Discerning the nature of the designer? |
31 Jan 2005 02:07:07 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware wrote:
As I understand it, and may well be wrong, IDers refuse to speculate
of the nature of the supposed designer. If that's the case, does
anyone know why that is?
I would have thought that if one subscribes to the idea of ID,
there's
lots of conclusions one could come to about the designer:
- thinks big
- is patient
- likes beetles
to name but three implicative characteristics of the supposed
designer.
You've left out a big one: if function implies design and design
implies a designer, then conflicting functions imply conflicting
designs, which imply conflicting designers. Predator vs. prey, disease
vs. immune response, etc, all demonstrate the overwhelming amount of
conflict in life on earth. If we're going to discern the nature of the
designer based on the designs of nature, we should be considering the
nature of the designers, plural.
But, letting my imagination run - if not wild - then out and about a
bit on a day trip to Yarmouth: why do we make or do things?
As far as I see it (and in short form) there are two basic reasons we
- humans - make or do things: either we want to accomplish an end -
if
we build a bridge it's to enable us to get from one side to the other
easily, for example. But the other reason we do things is to see
what
will happen and improve our understanding: we conduct experiments
because without the experiment we *cannot* know what we wish to know.
Suppose that the nature of our universe is such that there are some
things that are in principle unpredictable in detail and the designer
is conducting an experiment to see how it goes and learn things that
it could know in no other way? Presumably by implication it can't
fiddle with the ongoing experiment.
What would that say about the designer? If nothing else it would
certainly kill the link between ID and certain forms of religion and
at best imply a form of deism, which like agnosticism is little more
than shame faced atheism.
Mind you, if the universe is the Ph.D analogue of "something," I
sometimes get the feeling it's going to fail, and then what of us if
it does?
Maybe the universe isn't so much an experiment as a program being
implemented under the auspices of a committee with conflicting goals,
ulterior motives, and incompatible agendas. ;)
m
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
