IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

13 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Invoking The Voyagers Against Id
ljk4-1
post Oct 24 2005, 03:04 PM
Post #1


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2454
Joined: 8-July 05
From: NGC 5907
Member No.: 430



Cornell President Rawlings Condemns Intelligent Design

Drawing from sources ranging from Cornell's founders to Voyager
space missions, Interim President Hunter R. Rawlings III condemned
the push to teach intelligent design in public schools Friday. The
attack came during the president's State of...

http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/...4/435c7762cf891


"The desire to understand the world and the desire to reform it are the two great engines of progress." - Bertrand Russell


--------------------
"After having some business dealings with men, I am occasionally chagrined,
and feel as if I had done some wrong, and it is hard to forget the ugly circumstance.
I see that such intercourse long continued would make one thoroughly prosaic, hard,
and coarse. But the longest intercourse with Nature, though in her rudest moods, does
not thus harden and make coarse. A hard, sensible man whom we liken to a rock is
indeed much harder than a rock. From hard, coarse, insensible men with whom I have
no sympathy, I go to commune with the rocks, whose hearts are comparatively soft."

- Henry David Thoreau, November 15, 1853

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Oct 24 2005, 03:46 PM
Post #2


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



Eeek - not sure I like where this thread will end up going, but let's see what happens. Play nice boys smile.gif

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Richard Trigaux_*
post Oct 24 2005, 06:08 PM
Post #3





Guests






QUOTE (djellison @ Oct 24 2005, 03:46 PM)
Eeek - not sure I like where this thread will end up going, but let's see what happens. Play nice boys smile.gif

Doug
*



Interesting topic, and not completelly out of science stricto sensu. Eventually the discution can go bad, but I think we shall not regret it.

First of all, the link posted by ljk4-1 provides a complete discution of what is Intelligent design, "Intelligent design is the belief that nature and complex structures were ultimately designed, directly or indirectly, by a higher intelligence, rather than mechanistic chance." and why some oppose it being teached in public schools.

We can lead this discution at different levels:
1) the relevance of teaching it a school (I think we can, so long as we present it as only an hypothesis or religious tenet)
2) if the idea of Intelligent Design can be considered a scientific hypothesis or not. (I think we can, but with caution: it implies non-physical causes and it is not really proven)
3) the physics beyond the idea, which most interests me.

The idea of Intelligent design is based on some facts which arise very difficult questions.

Anthropism: the universe physics seems to be "designed for" he existence of life (matter antimatter assymmetry, unlikely tuning of the triple-alpha reaction leading to the only atom able of creating long chains...). Some take Anthropism as an evidence of a creation, but others consider it only as a side-effect: many universe would exist, will all the diversity we can imagine for physical laws, physical constants, etc, and we would be into one of the rare law set suitable for life.

Auto-formative mechanisms simulate very well a purpose. The evolution/selection of life forms is typically such a mechanism, where complex and highly organized structures emerge when they are extremely unlikely to appear. The evolution of consciousness is too such a mechanism, and we can see it working into the appearance of science, organized societies, moral codes, human values... From where to infer that a God leads the walk, there is just a little step. But we can also consider that the apparent purpose of the evolution of consciousness IS God, and worship Him in the same way.
God emerging from life rather than creating it? This contradiction disappears if we try to reply the question "why this universe exists", but this discution leads very far, I invite interested people to rather visit my site and eventually discuss this here.

4) a fourth point would be a debate science versus dogmatism. I would say that we cannot automatically write the equations science = materialism and no more religion = dogmatism. Great scientists like Einstein, Liebniz, Newton, were also involved in religion. Einstein favoured a kind of rational questioning of what seems to be a meaning of life, universe and consciousness. On the opposite side, it also happened that materialistic science led to extremes of violence in certain dictatures. With my opinion what we call reason (from rational) can deal with physics, yes, as science today knows to do. But it can also deal with consciousness, its content and its meaning. Refusing to envision what is the more important in our life, and lefting the field free for dogmatists and sectarians is really a very serious mistake.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
OWW
post Oct 30 2005, 11:41 AM
Post #4


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 710
Joined: 28-September 04
Member No.: 99



QUOTE (djellison @ Oct 24 2005, 03:46 PM)
Play nice boys smile.gif
*


Is this nice enough? tongue.gif

Story

Once upon a time there was an astonomer. Peering Long and hard through his telescope, he noticed strange lines on the planet Mars. To him, this network of straight lines looked very artificial and could only be of Intelligent Design! The people loved the many Books he wrote on the Designers' grand plan to fight a drought of Biblical proportions.

Years later scientists discovered that the astronomer had been tricked by his own eyes. The lines were an optical illusion! No canals on the martian surface! Only craters. The scientists said the craters were made by meteors, not Martians. The people were very disappointed, because they liked the story in the astronomer's Books better.

But then some of the people started to see a pattern in the Rows of Craters and Hills. And some of these hills were shaped like pyramids and even a face! Surely this could only have been Designed by Intelligent martians!

The scientists tried to explain that these shapes often form naturally when hills Erode, but the people didn't want to believe that and accused the scientists of hiding the truth! They wanted science books to include the real story of how the face was Created. The scientists said they didn't like the idea of teaching pseudoscience and resisted. The people were very Creative and claimed the martians used Erosion to Create the pyramids. The people and scientists continued arguing for years.

But in the end, history proved the people right. In 2032 the remains of a obviously very Intelligent martian were found on Mars:

Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
helvick
post Oct 30 2005, 01:48 PM
Post #5


Dublin Correspondent
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 1799
Joined: 28-March 05
From: Celbridge, Ireland
Member No.: 220



QUOTE (OWW @ Oct 30 2005, 12:41 PM)
In 2032 the remains of a obviously very Intelligent martian were found on Mars.

OWW, you have obviously gotten the dates wrong - the FSM is CLEARLY visible in the recent images of the planet and this is obvious PROOF that his Noodliness is following this discussion and has given us a SIGN!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Richard Trigaux_*
post Oct 30 2005, 02:16 PM
Post #6





Guests






QUOTE (OWW @ Oct 30 2005, 11:41 AM)
Is this nice enough?  tongue.gif

[i]Story

Once upon a time there was an astonomer. Peering Long and hard through his telescope, he noticed strange lines on the planet Mars. To him, this network of straight lines looked very artificial and could only be of Intelligent Design! The people loved the many Books he wrote on the Designers' grand plan to fight a drought of Biblical proportions.

*



Thank you OWW and helvick I though I was alone on this topic smile.gif


The problem of Mars channels is not the same thing than Intelligen Design. Intelligent Design is the idea that the world was designed by a divine intelligence, a theory which is not yet proven today, so that it is a bit of irrationnal to "believe" in it. But it still remains as a bit of intuition. May the poet be able to find things that science cannot?

The problem of Mars channels was though at the epoch as an evidence of Intelligent Life on Mars, an hypothesis which was legitimate one century ago, but which is completelly disproven today, as the channels turned to be only optical illusions.

The face on Mars was never seriously considered as an evidence of Intelligent Life on Mars: it is a nice and poetical curiosity.

I like very much the story of His Noodliness, as it explains well how dogmatic thinking justifies itself, what is sometimes called circular thinking. But it do not really settle many questions such as a purpose of life, purpose that we have to find in our hearts, for instance loving each others. Dogmatic materialists do not see this (or laugh at it to protect themselves of taking any commitment). Sensitive people see this. Honest people try to put this in practice. Dogmatic religious nuts grasp on it.

Doug, is my sandcastle nicer than OWW's??? tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dvandorn
post Oct 30 2005, 02:38 PM
Post #7


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3419
Joined: 9-February 04
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Member No.: 15



QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Oct 30 2005, 09:16 AM)
...Intelligent Design is the idea that the world was designed by a divine intelligence, a theory which is not yet proven today, so that it is a bit of irrationnal to "believe" in it...
*

Now, here is the crux of the issue. Intelligent Design is *not* a theory. It is a statement of *faith*. And, by definition, a statement of faith *cannot* be proven. It must be taken as truth, even though it is not possible to prove.

As such, ID is not, cannot be, and will never be a theory. It must either be accepted on faith, or not. As it can *never* be proven (as with any matter of faith), it cannot *ever* undergo tests of proof, and therefore cannot be a theory.

Period.

End of discussion.

Now, the reason why some people here in the U.S. want to have ID taught as science, when absolutely no stretch of scientific process can make it such -- that's another matter. The reasons behind it are the stuff of what Doug doesn't want this board degenerating into... i.e., politics. But, no matter how energetically some people may wave their arms in support of their point, ID simply is not, cannot be, and never will be a scientific theory, or *any* kind of theory -- not as long as its basis is a matter of faith.

-the other Doug


--------------------
“The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
helvick
post Oct 30 2005, 04:43 PM
Post #8


Dublin Correspondent
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 1799
Joined: 28-March 05
From: Celbridge, Ireland
Member No.: 220



QUOTE (dvandorn @ Oct 30 2005, 03:38 PM)
But, no matter how energetically some people may wave their arms in support of their point, ID simply is not, cannot be, and never will be a scientific theory, or *any* kind of theory -- not as long as its basis is a matter of faith.
*

Amen brother. Doug's probably gonna slap me for this one, but what the heck.

This is why the "discussions" about ID are not debate but rather dogmatic position statements like this. There is no possibility of debate in the subject of treating ID as a scientific anything because debate is a rationalist activity and belief just doesn't qualify for entry. The confusing part for me is why true believers should care in the first place. I tend to believe that the problem is that they don't. Believe that is. More on this later.

This is just todays flavour of the power struggle between blbilical literalists and rationalists and much of it is nothing new (see Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason" for one side of the argument from 230 years ago). When you strip away the specifics you can see that the argument is about the very lucretive property that is the minds of future generations. The proponents of both sides know that their future relies on taking ownership of the development of the future minds of the nation. The question that needs to be asked openly is whether rationalist or literalist minds are what the country wants. Evolution is just the specific target of the day.

It's worth wondering why many religions don't have a problem with accepting and co-existing with scientific rationalism while some seem to have the denial of rationality as a commandment; this seems to be a particular problem for some protestant christian sects. The problem those particular religions have appears to be that they don't genuinely rely on faith but on distorted rationalism (as seen in "arguments" for Creatinism\ID) and a reliance on the absolute veracity of "The Book". As such the foundations of those religions are far too easily threatened by real rational argument. The proponents claim to "believe" but also seem to need constant proof and re-assurance hence the struggle to eliminate sources of doubt particularly in the minds of the young.

I've also always found it interesting to look at the relationship between organised religion and government. It is rarely a pretty sight when the former has an significant influence in the latter but that is a separate argument.

As a final thought - for any one who might have been offended - I have to further risk eternal damnation by quoting the immortal* words of Bill Hicks.
QUOTE
... "Hey buddy, we're christians and we didn't like what you said".
I said "Then forgive me".
Later on, when I was hanging from the tree...

* Immortal in a hopeful rather than literal sense.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Richard Trigaux_*
post Oct 30 2005, 06:55 PM
Post #9





Guests






Ah, discution starts to heat, good. (Not a problem so long as everybody keeps respectful of others).

Dvandorn, I agree that ID is, for most of its proponents, an article of faith, or rather a dogma in the worse meaning of the word. And that it is dangerous to foster literalist dogmas in education.

ID is not a scientific theory, at least not yet.
But it could be an hypothesis. Free to everyone to pose it or not. Whatever we think in a scientific background or spiritual background, either.

That it will never be proven, this is not sure. The only thing sure is that if will be never proven by material science, and certainly not by materialist fundamentalism. If there is a God who created this universe and assigned us a purpose, there will be a moment where we shall have to fulfill our purpose. And this day the theory will come under test... For instance if this purpose is loving and kindness, those who do not practice loving kindness will have some trouble... You see that the experiment field is not a physics lab, it is our lives, our society.


Helvick, I appreciated your post, and could add or remove little.

To both I should add that spirituality is not that. Not fundamentalism, literalism, power struggle, not " the stuff of what Doug doesn't want this board degenerating into... ". Genuine spirituality is like science: questionning first. And after, to test our hypothesis with meditation/morals practice. Many great scientists were interested in spirituality. Most non-dogmatic great spiritual masters are interested in science. There is a famous one today, who lost his country from materialist fundamentalism. Let us not quote names.

Our human minds, our universe do not belong to religious nuts or fundamentalists.

Science as much as religion must take care not to be used to justify taboos or ideologies.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Richard Trigaux_*
post Oct 30 2005, 07:30 PM
Post #10





Guests






I would add that, to somewhat recenter the topic on something more or less related to space, that some purpose (if not ID) could be incorporated into cosmological scenarios.

Today most accepted cosmology theories study how the physical universe evolves from an intitial state (the singularity at the big bang). But they do not tell why this singularity exists. I say exists in the present tense, as, at this moment, time as we experience it has no meaning, so the question is "why the universe exists" and not "why it appeared". (to be exact some speculations are made about "before the Big bang", most of them predicting that many universe can exist).

Today accepted theories about life evolution say that this evolution is an auto-formative process, which can create complex structures from mere simplicity. This goes straight against the idea of Intelligent Design, as self-formative processes can generate structures which much ressemble very clever engineer designs for far reached purposes. So thinking, like literalists do, that life forms were designed by God is today really very naïve and it is understandable that it makes biology scientists angry.

So if there is really a God and a purpose, it is not to be seek into biology processes. It is obviously something deeply related to consciousness, meaning of life and eventually happiness. Is this matter related to cosmology and the existence of this universe? Do only exist universes where life evolves toward consciousness and wisdom, or do exist any universes with no life? If an universe contains no scientists to observe it, does it exist?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
helvick
post Oct 30 2005, 08:46 PM
Post #11


Dublin Correspondent
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 1799
Joined: 28-March 05
From: Celbridge, Ireland
Member No.: 220



QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Oct 30 2005, 08:30 PM)
So thinking, like literalists do, that life forms were designed by God is today really very naïve and it is understandable that it makes biology scientists angry. 

So if there is really a God and a purpose, it is not to be seek into biology processes. It is obviously something deeply related to consciousness, meaning of life and eventually happiness. Is this matter related to cosmology and the existence of this universe? Do only exist universes where life evolves toward consciousness and wisdom, or do exist any universes with no life? If an universe contains no scientists to observe it, does it exist?
*


There certainly are extremely intriguing questions facing us that are so difficult to encompass that they can only be dealt with by hypothesis and, dare I say it, belief: The nature of consciousness; what exactly is spirituality?; if there was a big bang then how do you deal with the concept of "before the big bang" ?.

Speciation (and evolution) is so solid as a theory that it certainly does not qualify as an area that can't be wholly understood from a rational scientific point of view. The current discussions on whether or not the "Pioneer anomoly" or any other data from current probes can provide data that will force us to adjus our current Newtonian\Einsteinian theory of gravity don't qualify either as all of these are perfectly manageable within the context of standard rational scientific investigation. We can make falsifiable predictions, investigate and get answers that prove or refute the assertions. We can (and do) carry out experiments and create accurate theoretical models.

No doubt there are researchers out there pushing the edge of the envelope on understanding the mind who are preparing a scientifically rational model as I type but I haven't come across any yet. Likewise there are plenty of Cosmologists who are foaming at the mouth at my earlier comment as they say that there is no such thing as "before the big bang" so the question is meaningless but that just doesn't cut the mustard for me as that requires me to believe that well, it all just started which is logically equivalent to "God did it" in my book.

Spirituality is one that I have difficulty with because I don't understand it or empathise with it as a concept at all. Frankly I don't see the need (personally) which makes it very hard for me to take discussions on it seriously. Why does there need to be a higher purpose? After all very little that we see on earth or in the universe makes it seem at all likely that such a "Higher Purpose", if it exists, is anything but a very, very cruel purpose indeed. Why have predators and prey? Diseases? Death? What purpose do the myriad of hugely destructive forces in the universe have apart from just being forces? Personally I think I'd have a hard time remaining sane if I thought there was a "higher purpose" because I cannot see how such a thing could have any hand in the way things are. So I remain a happy rational atheist for the time being even though I have no explanation for how I'm able to think and cannot for the life of me get my head around why "what happened before the big bang" is a meaningless question.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob Shaw
post Oct 30 2005, 10:25 PM
Post #12


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2488
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Member No.: 239



Considering the number of accidents, cock-ups and plain disasters we see in the universe at large (and locally), isn't it best to assume that the ID scenario is indeed, quite wrong, and that in fact UD is the way to go?

Er... ...that's 'Unintelligent Design', as I'm certain you all guessed. I'm sure Douglas Adams had some comments on a species which was searching for the Supreme Being just so they could give Him a piece of their mind...

Bob Shaw


--------------------
Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
helvick
post Oct 30 2005, 10:51 PM
Post #13


Dublin Correspondent
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 1799
Joined: 28-March 05
From: Celbridge, Ireland
Member No.: 220



QUOTE (Bob Shaw @ Oct 30 2005, 11:25 PM)
Er... ...that's 'Unintelligent Design', as I'm certain you all guessed. I'm sure Douglas Adams had some comments on a species which was searching for the Supreme Being just so they could give Him a piece of their mind...
*

Not quite the same DA quote but definitely the same intent:
QUOTE
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.

Also relevant:
QUOTE
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.

Possibly on topic but totally irrelevant:
QUOTE
A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mike
post Oct 30 2005, 11:18 PM
Post #14


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 350
Joined: 20-June 04
From: Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.
Member No.: 86



All thinking is circular.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dvandorn
post Oct 31 2005, 02:27 AM
Post #15


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3419
Joined: 9-February 04
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Member No.: 15



QUOTE (helvick @ Oct 30 2005, 03:46 PM)
...Likewise there are plenty of Cosmologists who are foaming at the mouth at my earlier comment as they say that there is no such thing as "before the big bang" so the question is meaningless...
*

Actually, some of the more recent cosmological theories propose that our entire Universe consists of a membrane which floats through a matrix of higher physical dimensions. It is but one of many such membranes, and the sudden creation of all of the matter and energy within the Universe occurred when our membrane touched another membrane, some 12 to 15 billion years ago.

I certainly don't understand all the math, but there are apparently mathematical descriptions of all this that show it could maybe be the path via which quantum behaviors at small particle levels can be reconciled with Einsteinian general relativity at macro levels.

But one of the things that is appealing (at least to scientific rationalists) about the membrane theory is that it allows for a "before the Big Bang." Instead of making the Big Bang a singularity that cannt be examined or evaluated on any rational level, it makes it simply the logical consequence of some other natural event.

-the other Doug


--------------------
“The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

13 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 04:50 PM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.