[X] My Assistant

[mike]

It seems to me that in this realm at least there will always be an argument that there is something that is simply beyond our comprehension and that we therefore can never observe it. However, I'm not sure how this argument is at all useful for anything in particular.

[ljk4-1]

Cornell Professors discuss Intelligent Design

Last month, Interim President Hunter R. Rawlings III devoted his
State of the University address to what he called the "challenge
to science posed by religiously-based opposition to evolution,
described, in its current form, as intelligent...

http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/...5/43798727eb0ab

[Tom Ames]

And if science today accepts only MATERIAL evidences, it cannot prove/disprove any hypothesis of an IMMATERIAL nature. To be able to positively state the existence/inexistence of other domains will obviously require OTHER TYPES of evidences.

I agree. Which is why science has nothing to say about supernatural phenomena.

Things goes so far that some fundamentalist scientists denegate the existence of consciousness itself (a very practical stance to also denegate any morals or responsibility toward society) because it is not materially observable!! Of course we cannot weight consciousness, but however you can do the test very easily: we can observe our own consciousness (at least this one), more preciselly the fact that we are conscious, and it is even the very first thing we are aware of, when we wake up in the morning.

Please provide the name of ONE such "fundamentalist scientist".

There is even a whole domain of today science which deals with "metaphysical" entities which existence cannot be materially observed. They even go so far than rigorously rejecting any material evidence. I let guess what, you and Tom Ames.

What domain of science would this be? If you're thinking of string theory, then I'd argue that the scientific status of the theory is questionable. Even so, string theorists don't let the non-scientific status of their discipline stop them from asking questions and finding objectively determinable answers. And they DON'T hire public relations firms to campaign for including their field in the high school science curriculum. (Nor does Pat Robertson call down the wrath of God onto school districts that decide not to teach string theory.)

I think this had better be my last contribution on this topic.

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

Please provide the name of ONE such "fundamentalist scientist".

Not on this forum!!!
I do not know the details either. But basically behaviourism states that "consciousness cannot be observed" only "behaviours" so we cannot do a consciousness science. To point at somebody without hurting actually living people, look at the nazi "scientists" and what they did.

What domain of science would this be? If you're thinking of string theory, then I'd argue that the scientific status of the theory is questionable. Even so, string theorists don't let the non-scientific status of their discipline stop them from asking questions and finding objectively determinable answers. And they DON'T hire public relations firms to campaign for including their field in the high school science curriculum. (Nor does Pat Robertson call down the wrath of God onto school districts that decide not to teach string theory.)

Not string theory, although with such theories physics goes closer and closer from sheer esoterism! (I think that string theory is a legitimate science theory, although I personally do not believe it to much).

I was simply speaking of mathematics. Of course the mathematicians do not say that what they study is "metaphysical" or "esoteric", they say it is "abstract". But it is the same family, isn't it?
Think: how can you positively prove that 2+2=4? How can you be sure that taking two sheeps more two sheeps will alway make 4 sheeps? Certainly not with material evidences, that anyway mathematicians reject in every case. To be sure of that, the mathematicians (mainstream mathematicians) just THINK: two objects on right hand, two others on the left hand, and count them all: this is just a visualisation, not essentially different of the visualisation techniques used in meditation. A consciousness experience, will say consciousness scientists. It works, because our consciousness is able to directly apprehend the abstract objects of the mathematic realms, without the need of any experimental aparatus, microscope, spectrometres, etc.
Still stronger, these abstract objects have a tremendous influence on the world. Think that in most cases, material objects obey to laws such as addition, multiplication, etc. (if they don't, it is that they obey to more complex laws, for instance the addition of relativistic speeds).


This characteristic of mathematics does not prove that consciousness items can influence the physical world in the same way that mathematic objects do, but it makes a bit of the path toward this. I shall just say that consciousness is able to directly apprehend other objects than just mathematical objects, and by considering these objects we can do a consciousness science about conciousness items, for instance about ethics, and even a consciousness technology, for instance learn to master disturbing emotions.

I think this had better be my last contribution on this topic.

Why? pitty, this discution is stimulating.

I think that the problem is that there are a bunch of fundamentalists, cultist and the like who speak and make noise in the name of religion and spirituality, and give a very bad and very false image of these domains. People truly and seriously involved into such domains just do the good without making fuss, and at very first they do not seek to impose their point of view by force. You may disagree with what I say, this is not a matter for bringing anger to me. But in the fight against abuses such as by Pat Robertson and the like, we are on the same side.

[hendric]

If I might, I would like to revisit ljk4's mention of Carl sagan's thoughts about us and our place in the universe. When I first read his idea that "we are the universe experiencing itself" (can't remember if it was in Cosmos or The Demon Haunted World) it immediately struck me as one of the most intensely beautiful ideas I had ever considered.

I prefer J. M. Stracyznski's version of it:

"We are star stuff. We are the Universe made manifest, trying to figure itself
out."- Ambassador Delenn, Babylon 5

Back to the subject, the one reason why ID is not, and never will be science, is this:

(Being as neutral as possible on this) Can someone who feels that the hypothesis of ID is correct, be convinced that it is incorrect given overwhelming evidence?

99% of the time, the answer is no. Therefore, it is not a hypothesis, but a belief, and as a belief, it is a part of a religion. ID-pushers will continue to believe in ID, not matter how much evidence exists to refute their claim. Just ask them, and they will tell you.

Science is creating a hypothesis, and testing if it is true or not. If it is not true, it is customary and normal to try and fix it, but only to a point. Eventually, you have to discard the hypothesis as wrong, no matter how much you have invested in it. This is a fundamental and necessary part of science. There are many stories of the sort like "I heard Xxx, thought it was complete garbage and did experiment Yyy to prove it wrong, but my experiment kept proving Xxx! I had to change my mind!" or "I spent years proving Yyy, but eventually had to give up because even I could see Xxx is correct." You will never hear an ID "scientist" say something like that because again, they are "proving" a belief, not a hypothesis.

As far as ID itself goes, the "theory" is so full of holes as to be ludicrous. An "intelligent designer?" Please. Who designed the designer? If the designer is everlasting and infinite, why not the universe? Why is there only one? Was there a committee involved? Was there a budget? Or, as is typical on the projects I am on, were the specifications written after the project was already done? How intelligent was the designer? I have some suggestions on improvements that could be done... Frankly, the Giant Spaghetti Monster is more credible.

Finally, the hypothesis that there has to be a designer because something is so "complex" is simply anthropomorphism; just because we can't understand how it was done does not mean that it wasn't done naturally, or is even hard to occur naturally! They say "look at life, it is sooo complex and hard to make", I say, "look at life, it must be ridiculously easy to make because it occurs so early in the Earth's history." Admittedly, extrapolating from one data point is its own bad science, but we gotta do with what we have, at least until Europa/Titan/Mars get fully explored.

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

...

How complex life could have appeared without Intelligent Design? The example often puled forward by anti-evolutionists is bird flight. After the selection theory, wings would have appeared slowly. But if so, they were useless, and the evolution tendency would have be to suppress them. The appearance of flight implies so much simultaneous transformations that it is very unlikely that all these took place simultaneously. So the theory of evolution is false, say the anti-evolutionists. And until recently the evolutionists had no real reply to this.

In fact there was recently some curious discoveries, as fossils with four wings, more ancient than the most ancient birds, and still more ancient feathered dinosaurs. So from these tenuous evidence we can infer how things happened: dinosaurs, which descended from fishes, had scales, as still the reptilians have today. And there was thousands of species of dinosaurs, most of them the size of rabbits or rats. One day one caught a "genetic disease": slit scales. But this provided it an evolutionnary advantage: thermal isolation, which in turn favoured thermal regulation, and also more and more slit scales. Thus feather appeared. Some of these feathered beings were nimble enough to climb at trees, as maybe many other small dinosaurs did. But feathers allowed them a trick that scaly beings were unable to perform: when jumping, to be able to control their trajectory. This gave them a further evolutionary advantage, which selected longer and more complex feathers. Several solutions were tested, such as long feathers on all four members (four-winged birds), but using the same members to fly and grip at boughs in the same time was not functionnal, so we arrived to the today solution: fore members as wings and rear members with claws to grip at boughs.

So the complex features of flight appeared, as if it was designed. But it was not designed, it is a result of the work of the evolution-selection process, or evolution engine. And not only flight appeared, but it appeared four times: insects, pterodactyls, birds, bats, and this is not a feature of a long forgotten past: it is in the process of working today just under our noses with flying fishes and "winged" squirels.

So there is no need of thinking that all the fantastically complex details of our bodies were designed (and there are however some very nasty bugs and no after sale support, not to speak of maintenance).


However the idea of some intention at the origin of the universe is still an interesting speculation with things such as anthropism. So scientists are still free to discuss of it, so long they do not state unproven things as the truth. So it is really a darn nuisance that religious fundamentalist spoil this issue with saying things which are not of their domain. Recently the Dalaï Lama stated that, facing the discoveries of science, such as the big bang and evolution, many ancient buddhist belief should be revisited or abandoned. This is a much more interesting approach and a much more interesting discution that the bunch of closed-minded dogmatics who pull ID by force.

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

I prefer J. M. Stracyznski's version of it:

"We are star stuff. We are the Universe made manifest, trying to figure itself
out."- Ambassador Delenn, Babylon 5

I like this approach very much

[ljk4-1]

I like this approach very much

Which came pretty much verbatim from Carl Sagan. It's nice to know at least some of the science fiction series on television did their homework.

[mike]

If anyone can describe a way to prove or disprove ID, I'd like to hear it. Even if some entity showed itself this very day and said "I am God" and proceeded to make things explode, make things out of 'nothing', etc., there would be no way to prove it wasn't just a super-powerful alien that obeys the same universal laws as everyone else.

If there is indeed a singular all-powerful god, it doesn't want us to be entirely sure it exists at all, down to the very way everything everywhere works.

If you want to have an infinite argument, bring up ID.

[helvick]

If anyone can describe a way to prove or disprove ID, I'd like to hear it. 

Proof of a Godlike designer is possible but unlikely. All that would have to happen is for the designer to turn up and say "Hi!". Mind you I don't think that is what the proponents of ID have in mind. It is also possible that _if_ a designer was involved that it might have left a _sign_. But neither proof allows for the hypothesis to be tested, the designer does not ever have to appear and does not have to have left any signs. So they aren't really practical.

Absolutely disproving ID requires that you disprove a hypothesis that does not abide by rational rules. I don't think that it is possible to do it without having access to the resources of a (limited) god-like entity, who whould have to have the sort of power that a hypothetical designer would need in the first place. That's a bit of a logical Catch-22 a-la Douglas Adams and Zebra crossings but he had a lot of useful things to say when he was being funny that are very relevant to this topic. You can't disprove it in the traditional sense because the proponents of ID do not use rational argument (or principles) as a basis for their hypothesis. Anything presented as logical proof can be eliminated with the "Goddidit!" magic card.

This is why the whole idea that there is a "debate" is dishonest. One side has to play by rules while the other side has a universal excuse for anything (ie they believe in magic) . There isn't a debate about ID vs Evolution. There are people who believe in rational thought and people who believe in magic.

I've no problem with people of faith believing in whatever they choose to believe in provided they are honest about the fact that their explanation relies on faith and is irrational*. I don't mean that in a negative sense, I mean that they accept that things can happen that cannot ever be explained in a rational way. So why do they bother? When I see proponents of ID\Creationism getting worked up by Evolution I see people who don't have sufficient faith in their claimed beliefs to be able to simply believe them. They seem to want to be able to use rational arguments to prove that their belief is right. That is an astonishingly dishonest position as far as I'm concerned.

The really astounding thing is that this is a fight that was fought to the death 150 years ago and Creationism lost. Its resurrection is about as welcome as the resurrection of another belief that was killed off by science around the same time would be - the belief that radioactive elixirs were wonder cures for all manner of illnesses.

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

If anyone can describe a way to prove or disprove ID, I'd like to hear it.  Even if some entity showed itself this very day and said "I am God" and proceeded to make things explode, make things out of 'nothing', etc., there would be no way to prove it wasn't just a super-powerful alien that obeys the same universal laws as everyone else.

If there is indeed a singular all-powerful god, it doesn't want us to be entirely sure it exists at all, down to the very way everything everywhere works.

If you want to have an infinite argument, bring up ID.

Intelligent Design stricto sensu was disproven by paleontologists, whose findings fit with the theory of evolution, not with Intelligent Design. So the debate is closed, as expalins helvick.

The problem is (again) that we discuss, not about some reasonable investigation about the purpose of life, but about what abruptly state a bunch of dogmatics who speak in the place of others in a domain which is not their. I am not interested to speak about what Pat Roberson and the like say. I could be interested to speak about what Jesus said, for instance that we must love each other (argh out of topic ). Discussing means to love each others is Christianism, unearthing false theories is nothing. Forget Pat Robertson. But do not forget sincere peoples who try to make good.

The question of a purpose of life which would be the intention of a creator, this problem is something we can make reasoning about, reasonings which could lead to conclusions, and eventually to tests.
When anybody creates something, it provides it means to fulfill its purpose. For instance an aircraft has direction actuator, and a map, and on the map the point where to go. So if we were created, we should find somewhere some message, or some guidance, to tell us what to do and what to not do.

Material science found no material message. So we can make several hypothesis:
1-there is no creator and no purpose. This is he opinion of the atheists/materialists.
2-finding the message implies a test or learning, like the final learning of a neuronal integrated circuit.
3-the message is not material. For instance it is implied into the working of consciousness: we must "heed our heart". This is the bet of peoples who are not satisfied by the first hypothesis.
4-there is no pre-defined purpose, either there is no creator or he lets us free. In this case we have to find our own purpose or intent.

Unfortunatelly none of these hypothesis are testable in the usual way. But History made some tests: societies which were based on 2-3-4 were more peaceful and happy than societies based on 1. This is an useful conclusion, I think.

[mike]

As I said, even if a really powerful/god-like being did really powerful/god-like things, how would you magically 'know' it was god and not just some really powerful/god-like being saying it was god? You couldn't.

There is simply no way to prove or disprove ID. Any 'evidence' for either side of the debate will be utterly subjective (and will not in fact be evidence at all). I think peoples' time would be better spent on more concretely productive activities (finding more efficient sources of energy, painting pictures, growing food, you get the idea..).

[ljk4-1]

I prefer J. M. Stracyznski's version of it:

"We are star stuff. We are the Universe made manifest, trying to figure itself
out."- Ambassador Delenn, Babylon 5

And the late Sir Fred Hoyle -

Robyn Williams: You can’t get more fundamental than that, can you?

Simon Mitton: No, I mean to not only show us how these things formed but to get the proportions right so we can explain why the elements in the crust of the planet Earth are the way they are – it’s because they’re stardust, and they’re there in the proportions that are made in the stars. So what Fred taught us was that we ourselves are made of stardust, the planet Earth is made of stardust and when we look out at the bright stars, the giant stars in the night sky we’re looking at huge nuclear reactors which are making all the heavy elements of the far future in the history of our universe. I call that a great achievement without question.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s1490018.htm

[Jeff7]

Interesting side note on heavy elements - I wonder what the heaviest natural element is? We think of it as being uranium, but that's probably because anything heavier than that has decayed already. Look at some of these super-heavy elements being created artificially - half lives of only a few seconds, if even that long, and then they decay into lighter things. I just wonder how big of an atom an imploding star could produce, if it'd only last for a fraction of a second. Granted, not like it really matters to us...just a curiosity though.

[dvandorn]

My understanding is that most normal stars can only "build" heavier elements up to the weight of iron. These are the stars that are only massive enough to blow up in a nova.

It takes a supernova, with its resultant temperatures and pressures, to fuse the iron and lighter elements into heavier elements than iron.

The question then becomes: how many supernovae have there been in the galaxy over its lifetime, and how much in the way of heavier-than-iron elements has been created? That would put an upper limit on the amount of high-mass matter that exists, and out of which differentiated, rocky planets may have formed...

-the other Doug