Yes and no- like everybody, the Vatican is made up of human beings and is just as subject to propaganda. Notice what Coyne doesn't say- that God does not exist. That is the difference I'm pointing to between ID and Evolution currently- belief in God vs belief in Randomness- and neither is a scientific point of view, but rather a philosophical one.
Randomness does exist in the universe. Quantum physics has shown us that.
No, quantum physics has only shown us that on the quantum layer, physical laws exist which are beyond our finite minds to comprehend. This could imply randomness- or it could also imply that we are not evolved enough yet to fully understand the universe. This is testible- but will take longer than our current history to test.
Of course they result in the exact same effect. They are both trying to explain how the WORLD WE CURRENTLY LIVE IN came about. The difference is that evolution looks at evidence and creationism looks at ancient mythology.
ID and evolution look at evidence and creationism looks at ancient mythology. Due to that, creationism is actually describing a world we do not currently live in- because evidence against it exists.
The process of how it happened, not the end product, is the WHOLE POINT. The other difference is that with evolution, some other end result could have just as easily come about.
Now that's the real point between Intelligent Design and Evolution- under Intelligent Design, no other end result could have come about, because the physical laws set at planck time, including those quantum laws which we don't have knowledge of yet, dictate how everything turns out. Under evolution, anything could have happened, under ID only one result could have happened- and at current time in our scientific knowledge there's no way to prove that other random events could have occured.
A designed universe implies a Designer, and if that Designer isn't supernatural in origin, they themselves must have been designed...but by who?
There are two theories I like. The unidirectional time theory would state that the Designer was obviously created by another designer, ad infitium. In other words, God has a God. The other theory is the circular time theory- which states that the heat death of our universe causes time to loop, and thus God is our ultimate descendant, who returns the favor in recreating us 18 billion years ago or some unimaginable number of years ahead on the circle. Halfway in between these two theories is the spiral time theory, which states that the universe expands and contracts, and the intelligent beings of each cycle evolve to become the God of the next cycle.
Note that two of these theories actually require the existance of dark matter though- where the third does not. All three are testible, given enough time.
Eventually, you have to call a halt to the infinite regression
Why? What in our experience is a closed system with FINITE boundaries?
YEC, I think you're correct on. I'm not so sure about ID, since it predicts exactly the same outcome, right down to the age of the universe and the fossil record, that Evolution does.
You are correct, but that just means I'm all the more right that there is no difference between Evolution and ID, and thus it should be interesting to see them presented together in a single exhibit.
Evolution is a scientific theory, testable and falsifiable, with a clear, defined premise at its foundation and decades of rigorous scientific observation that backs it up.
Really? How do you test random chance? How do you tell the difference between random chance and molecules obeying physical laws that we don't understand yet?
See the difference yet?
Not until you can prove that randomness exists. Which you can't. And since random chance vs God is the only difference between "evolution" and "ID", I have to say you've failed utterly to explain the difference.
have examined the "evidence", thanks...and without a single exception every piece of "evidence" in favor of Creationism...er...ID
Since you confuse the two, it is obvious that you don't know the first thing about what ID teaches. It's hard to miss the difference between creationism and ID in the age of the universe, or even the age of planet earth, for instance (hint- ID requires 18 billion years, not 6000 years). So if you haven't even examined the evidence enough to know the difference between ID and creationism, why should we believe that you've studied it enough to not be prejudiced against it?
Yes and no- the existance of Planck Time in Big Bang theory suggests strongly the existance of a God, but does not prove it. There is no other explaination of why the physical constants are what they are, however, and it's due to those physical constants that natural selection takes place.
Intelligent design is not based on natural history.
Saying so doesn't make it so, and only shows your own ignorance as to what ID is.
It is based on the refusal to consider evolution and the realization that if you talk about creationism, people won't listen to you.
I think you've got that backward. ID basically says evolution occurred, but through constant tweaking by God* instead of random chance and natural selection. It's not really compatible with Deism, which posits that God set everything up at the beginning and then stood back and watched it unfold.
Actually, ti's even less than that- natural selection is accepted by ID, only Random Chance is denied. Deism and ID are really the same thing- assuming a creator intelligent enough to set everything up at the begining to fullfill a given plan. The part that they differ on is intent- the Diest might say that God did not Intend evolution to turn out this way, the IDer would say he/she/it did.
You're right, I missed one assumption: that the experimenter is intelligent.
At what point did anyone design the life that evolves in the new universe?
Defining those physical laws forced the design of the life; if Intelligent Design is correct, those physical laws micromanage evolution to the point that what we see is what was always planed. If something else, given the same "plan" evolves, either we did not duplicate the plan exactly, or randomness exists and cannot be removed from the experiment. If the second, Spontaneous Genesis is proven.
Are you completely insane?
Not a bit. Most people don't understand Intelligent Design, the YECers are trying to use it to do something it cannot do.
Evolution is nothing even remotely like ID.
Actually, Evolution and ID are so similar that logically they result in the EXACT SAME EFFECT. The same cannot be said of creationism, which requires that the earth be much larger and that God be a supernatural being.
Care to explain how you came to that conclusion? If the universe had a cause, why did that cause have to be intelligent?
2nd law of Thermodynamics- Given a closed system, energy tends towards chaos, not towards order. Planck time was the ultimate closed system- being in the middle of the big bang, *before* there was anything outside of the big bang. Without something to order the universe at that point, there would be no physical laws. That's the useage of the word intelligent I'm using- one could point out that the computer on your desk is as intelligent as this view of God, but somebody had to program the computer on your desk to do that. This actually supports the Hindu point of view rather than the Christian- turtles on top of turtles...
Intelligent design is the idea that life was created by an intelligence. It is directly opposed to evolution.
Nothing in evolution is opposed to the idea that life was created by an intelligence- the only thing evolution claims is that the intelligence used trial and error to create the complexity of life that we do see, much as a modern computer programmer uses cycles of bug testing and bug repair to make his program better.
Hey, if you don't believe that Planck time exists, then you'd better give up on science as well- since the physical laws being discovered by science were created during the Big Bang at Planck Time. Congradulations in your philosophical attempt to disprove ID, you've destroyed all of scientific thought as well.
ID is Evolution. Anybody who says differently is either:
not being honest with you, or
not being honest with themselves.
Means about the same as your argument. And it's funny that you say this:
The oh-so-predictable Ad Hominem attacks aside, excluding such claptrap as astrology and ID from the realm of scientific discourse is not because of bigotry...it is because astrology and ID are not science. Take your persecution complex elsewhere, thanks.
Claiming that something is not science without actually examining the evidence for it is the very definition of bigotry and prejudice. So no- you've failed to convince anybody of anything, and in fact, repeated the error.
(1) It's the museum of *natural* history. It's permissible to believe in supernatural history, but it's a category error to suppose that supernatural history deserves a place alongside natural history. It's a bit like demanding that, say, computer stores should sell nutritious meals, because nothing is more important than nutrition.
ID, taught properly (and it isn't, but just say that it is) actually denies that supernatural events exist.
(2) Rightly or wrongly, creationism and intelligent design are extreme minority viewpoints within the scientific community, and the museum, with limited resources, should concentrate on the scientific mainstream. In this respect, they are no different than the National Gallery showing paintings whose importance lies in their position in mainstream painting history, or the Air and Space museum concentrating on historically important air and spacecraft.
And rightly or wrongly, the scientific mainstream is an extreme minority viewpoint in human history. In this respect- science itself is still quite young when it comes to human beings contemplating where we all came from.
Well, for one, faith-based intelligent design is not natural history and therefore not worthy to be in a natural history museum.
And another person shows that they know NOTHING about what Intelligent Design teaches. Intelligent Design is based in natural history- for it is through natural history that we learn the mind of God (NOT through the Bible- amazing how many people miss that).
Here's a basis for it to be tested, though not one likely to be repeated in a lab anytime soon: Create a universe. Give it the same laws as our own. Run it forward 18 million years or so. If intelligent beings evolve, Intelligent Design is verified. If no intelligent beings evolve, then either a) our resolution of the physical laws wasn't perfect enough OR b) random chance is verified.
Because that's all Intelligent Design is- Deism. If anything the YEC'ers ought to be as against Intelligent Design as they are against Evolution- because they are one and the same. But they're not because they're as stupid as you are and don't understand what ID is.
There is nothing in Origin of the Species that discusses abiogenesis.
Except for of course the line that got all the YEC's hot to begin with, right? The bit about there being no neccessity of a God to explain life?
What evidence exists for ID?
The one that insists that "random chance" is subjective evidence, and therefore should be eliminated from the explaination.
And I am not talking about *negative* evidence (i.e., "it is just too complex to explain otherwise"). I am asking for a postive assertion of evidence that supports ID.
The most convincing to me is Planck Time- before which there were no physical laws, after which there were the exact physical laws that led eventually to life. Those who are against the idea of Intelligent Design would have us believe that event, in all of history, is alone in being an uncaused event. If you believe that event had a cause- then everything, evolution included, was a part of an intelligent plan from the begining. Not human intelligence, not anthromophic myth, not possibly even anything that would have been though of as intelligent by the "humans are the only intelligent beings" bigots. But a *cause*- because we know of nothing else in all of history that didn't have a cause.
Intelligent Design isn't opposed to Evolution- Intelligent Design is opposed to the idea of a meaningless universe. Which is why neither side of the debate actually knows what they're talking about.
As for 'irreducible complexity'- there can only be examples of nouns, not definitions. I can think of several examples, but not a single definition.
Any "balanced" exhibit would come down firmly on the side of Darwin to the total exclusion of the others. Both ID and Young Earth creationism are so full of crap that there's no way to present them accurately and scientifically without alienating the creationist (including ID) crowd. Asking for a "balanced" Darwin exhibit that gives fair play to creationism is like asking for a "balanced" Hubble exhibit that gives fair play to astrology.
You just gave good proof why the Coppe/Coyne ID needs to be presented; you're stupid enough to believe that it's creationism. It is possible to present their views "accurately" without being "scientific"- http://www.roadsideamerica.com/ has quite a list of museums that do exactly that without presenting evolution. And unlike you, I don't have a problem with pictures from the Hubble Telescope being presented right beside an exhibit that gives fair play to the math used in astrology, because I'm not a bigot.
Polls get overstated all the time- and this CBS poll was most certainly distorted in both results and leading questions. Another possible interpretation of the *same poll* could lead you to believe 75% of Americans support evolution and 51% dispute the idea of spontaneous genesis.
What about making a balanced exhibit that companies CAN support without losing business, and letting people viewing the exhibit come to their own conclusions? I personally would find a Scofield/Darwin/Coppe exhibit to be very enlightening- even if I think the evidence behind Darwin (Spontaneous Genesis) and Coppe (Intelligent Design) would knock Scofield (Young Earth Creationism) all hollow (but then again, that's how it should be isn't it, since this is in historical order of theories proposed?)
Wow, now that was a little arrogant. Remember if the world was full of smart people then everything would work right, and we would have nothing to do!
Good- that's the way I like it. Automate whatever possible, and use your brain to realize what your place in the world is. Cost cutting is *always* stupid, because it cuts the buying potential of your customers. It's almost as stupid as investing in non-local businesses; 8 cents return for every dollar spent instead of 8 dollars return for every dollar spent is a pretty stupid system. I am arrogant about this- because if we don't get arrogant, the only other option is to capitulate to the stupidity.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes and no- like everybody, the Vatican is made up of human beings and is just as subject to propaganda. Notice what Coyne doesn't say- that God does not exist. That is the difference I'm pointing to between ID and Evolution currently- belief in God vs belief in Randomness- and neither is a scientific point of view, but rather a philosophical one.
Randomness does exist in the universe. Quantum physics has shown us that.
No, quantum physics has only shown us that on the quantum layer, physical laws exist which are beyond our finite minds to comprehend. This could imply randomness- or it could also imply that we are not evolved enough yet to fully understand the universe. This is testible- but will take longer than our current history to test.
Of course they result in the exact same effect. They are both trying to explain how the WORLD WE CURRENTLY LIVE IN came about. The difference is that evolution looks at evidence and creationism looks at ancient mythology.
ID and evolution look at evidence and creationism looks at ancient mythology. Due to that, creationism is actually describing a world we do not currently live in- because evidence against it exists.
The process of how it happened, not the end product, is the WHOLE POINT. The other difference is that with evolution, some other end result could have just as easily come about.
Now that's the real point between Intelligent Design and Evolution- under Intelligent Design, no other end result could have come about, because the physical laws set at planck time, including those quantum laws which we don't have knowledge of yet, dictate how everything turns out. Under evolution, anything could have happened, under ID only one result could have happened- and at current time in our scientific knowledge there's no way to prove that other random events could have occured.
A designed universe implies a Designer, and if that Designer isn't supernatural in origin, they themselves must have been designed...but by who?
There are two theories I like. The unidirectional time theory would state that the Designer was obviously created by another designer, ad infitium. In other words, God has a God. The other theory is the circular time theory- which states that the heat death of our universe causes time to loop, and thus God is our ultimate descendant, who returns the favor in recreating us 18 billion years ago or some unimaginable number of years ahead on the circle. Halfway in between these two theories is the spiral time theory, which states that the universe expands and contracts, and the intelligent beings of each cycle evolve to become the God of the next cycle.
Note that two of these theories actually require the existance of dark matter though- where the third does not. All three are testible, given enough time.
Eventually, you have to call a halt to the infinite regression
Why? What in our experience is a closed system with FINITE boundaries?
Uh, I did- I admited he was quite correct, which in my mind removed yet another barrier between evolution and ID.
YEC, I think you're correct on. I'm not so sure about ID, since it predicts exactly the same outcome, right down to the age of the universe and the fossil record, that Evolution does.
You are correct, but that just means I'm all the more right that there is no difference between Evolution and ID, and thus it should be interesting to see them presented together in a single exhibit.
Evolution is a scientific theory, testable and falsifiable, with a clear, defined premise at its foundation and decades of rigorous scientific observation that backs it up.
Really? How do you test random chance? How do you tell the difference between random chance and molecules obeying physical laws that we don't understand yet?
See the difference yet?
Not until you can prove that randomness exists. Which you can't. And since random chance vs God is the only difference between "evolution" and "ID", I have to say you've failed utterly to explain the difference.
have examined the "evidence", thanks...and without a single exception every piece of "evidence" in favor of Creationism...er...ID
Since you confuse the two, it is obvious that you don't know the first thing about what ID teaches. It's hard to miss the difference between creationism and ID in the age of the universe, or even the age of planet earth, for instance (hint- ID requires 18 billion years, not 6000 years). So if you haven't even examined the evidence enough to know the difference between ID and creationism, why should we believe that you've studied it enough to not be prejudiced against it?
You are pre-assuming that there is a god.
Yes and no- the existance of Planck Time in Big Bang theory suggests strongly the existance of a God, but does not prove it. There is no other explaination of why the physical constants are what they are, however, and it's due to those physical constants that natural selection takes place.
Intelligent design is not based on natural history.
Saying so doesn't make it so, and only shows your own ignorance as to what ID is.
It is based on the refusal to consider evolution and the realization that if you talk about creationism, people won't listen to you.
Actually, no. Nothing in evolution is against ID.
I think you've got that backward. ID basically says evolution occurred, but through constant tweaking by God* instead of random chance and natural selection. It's not really compatible with Deism, which posits that God set everything up at the beginning and then stood back and watched it unfold.
Actually, ti's even less than that- natural selection is accepted by ID, only Random Chance is denied. Deism and ID are really the same thing- assuming a creator intelligent enough to set everything up at the begining to fullfill a given plan. The part that they differ on is intent- the Diest might say that God did not Intend evolution to turn out this way, the IDer would say he/she/it did.
How exactly is ID verified?
You're right, I missed one assumption: that the experimenter is intelligent.
At what point did anyone design the life that evolves in the new universe?
Defining those physical laws forced the design of the life; if Intelligent Design is correct, those physical laws micromanage evolution to the point that what we see is what was always planed. If something else, given the same "plan" evolves, either we did not duplicate the plan exactly, or randomness exists and cannot be removed from the experiment. If the second, Spontaneous Genesis is proven.
Are you completely insane?
Not a bit. Most people don't understand Intelligent Design, the YECers are trying to use it to do something it cannot do.
Evolution is nothing even remotely like ID.
Actually, Evolution and ID are so similar that logically they result in the EXACT SAME EFFECT. The same cannot be said of creationism, which requires that the earth be much larger and that God be a supernatural being.
Care to explain how you came to that conclusion? If the universe had a cause, why did that cause have to be intelligent?
2nd law of Thermodynamics- Given a closed system, energy tends towards chaos, not towards order. Planck time was the ultimate closed system- being in the middle of the big bang, *before* there was anything outside of the big bang. Without something to order the universe at that point, there would be no physical laws. That's the useage of the word intelligent I'm using- one could point out that the computer on your desk is as intelligent as this view of God, but somebody had to program the computer on your desk to do that. This actually supports the Hindu point of view rather than the Christian- turtles on top of turtles...
Intelligent design is the idea that life was created by an intelligence. It is directly opposed to evolution.
Nothing in evolution is opposed to the idea that life was created by an intelligence- the only thing evolution claims is that the intelligence used trial and error to create the complexity of life that we do see, much as a modern computer programmer uses cycles of bug testing and bug repair to make his program better.
Hey, if you don't believe that Planck time exists, then you'd better give up on science as well- since the physical laws being discovered by science were created during the Big Bang at Planck Time. Congradulations in your philosophical attempt to disprove ID, you've destroyed all of scientific thought as well.
Good- first man to realize my spelling error. Coyne actually is EXACTLY the form of ID I support- and his is NOT the same as YEC.
ID is Evolution. Anybody who says differently is either:
not being honest with you, or
not being honest with themselves.
Means about the same as your argument. And it's funny that you say this:
The oh-so-predictable Ad Hominem attacks aside, excluding such claptrap as astrology and ID from the realm of scientific discourse is not because of bigotry...it is because astrology and ID are not science. Take your persecution complex elsewhere, thanks.
Claiming that something is not science without actually examining the evidence for it is the very definition of bigotry and prejudice. So no- you've failed to convince anybody of anything, and in fact, repeated the error.
Intelligent design is creationism in a different suit.
Or it's evolution in a different suit. Hard to tell, since it has elements of both.
Also, how is having a problem with astrology being presented in a science museum bigotry?
Rejection of an idea or a people based on prejudice.
I'm saying "This garbage has no scientific support."
Only because you've redefined science to eliminate 4000 years worth of empirical evidence.
What makes you think that God is supernatural?
(1) It's the museum of *natural* history. It's permissible to believe in supernatural history, but it's a category error to suppose that supernatural history deserves a place alongside natural history. It's a bit like demanding that, say, computer stores should sell nutritious meals, because nothing is more important than nutrition.
ID, taught properly (and it isn't, but just say that it is) actually denies that supernatural events exist.
(2) Rightly or wrongly, creationism and intelligent design are extreme minority viewpoints within the scientific community, and the museum, with limited resources, should concentrate on the scientific mainstream. In this respect, they are no different than the National Gallery showing paintings whose importance lies in their position in mainstream painting history, or the Air and Space museum concentrating on historically important air and spacecraft.
And rightly or wrongly, the scientific mainstream is an extreme minority viewpoint in human history. In this respect- science itself is still quite young when it comes to human beings contemplating where we all came from.
Well, for one, faith-based intelligent design is not natural history and therefore not worthy to be in a natural history museum.
And another person shows that they know NOTHING about what Intelligent Design teaches. Intelligent Design is based in natural history- for it is through natural history that we learn the mind of God (NOT through the Bible- amazing how many people miss that).
Here's a basis for it to be tested, though not one likely to be repeated in a lab anytime soon: Create a universe. Give it the same laws as our own. Run it forward 18 million years or so. If intelligent beings evolve, Intelligent Design is verified. If no intelligent beings evolve, then either a) our resolution of the physical laws wasn't perfect enough OR b) random chance is verified.
Because that's all Intelligent Design is- Deism. If anything the YEC'ers ought to be as against Intelligent Design as they are against Evolution- because they are one and the same. But they're not because they're as stupid as you are and don't understand what ID is.
There is nothing in Origin of the Species that discusses abiogenesis.
Except for of course the line that got all the YEC's hot to begin with, right? The bit about there being no neccessity of a God to explain life?
What evidence exists for ID?
The one that insists that "random chance" is subjective evidence, and therefore should be eliminated from the explaination.
And I am not talking about *negative* evidence (i.e., "it is just too complex to explain otherwise"). I am asking for a postive assertion of evidence that supports ID.
The most convincing to me is Planck Time- before which there were no physical laws, after which there were the exact physical laws that led eventually to life. Those who are against the idea of Intelligent Design would have us believe that event, in all of history, is alone in being an uncaused event. If you believe that event had a cause- then everything, evolution included, was a part of an intelligent plan from the begining. Not human intelligence, not anthromophic myth, not possibly even anything that would have been though of as intelligent by the "humans are the only intelligent beings" bigots. But a *cause*- because we know of nothing else in all of history that didn't have a cause.
Intelligent Design isn't opposed to Evolution- Intelligent Design is opposed to the idea of a meaningless universe. Which is why neither side of the debate actually knows what they're talking about.
As for 'irreducible complexity'- there can only be examples of nouns, not definitions. I can think of several examples, but not a single definition.
Any "balanced" exhibit would come down firmly on the side of Darwin to the total exclusion of the others. Both ID and Young Earth creationism are so full of crap that there's no way to present them accurately and scientifically without alienating the creationist (including ID) crowd. Asking for a "balanced" Darwin exhibit that gives fair play to creationism is like asking for a "balanced" Hubble exhibit that gives fair play to astrology.
You just gave good proof why the Coppe/Coyne ID needs to be presented; you're stupid enough to believe that it's creationism. It is possible to present their views "accurately" without being "scientific"- http://www.roadsideamerica.com/ has quite a list of museums that do exactly that without presenting evolution. And unlike you, I don't have a problem with pictures from the Hubble Telescope being presented right beside an exhibit that gives fair play to the math used in astrology, because I'm not a bigot.
Polls get overstated all the time- and this CBS poll was most certainly distorted in both results and leading questions. Another possible interpretation of the *same poll* could lead you to believe 75% of Americans support evolution and 51% dispute the idea of spontaneous genesis.
What about making a balanced exhibit that companies CAN support without losing business, and letting people viewing the exhibit come to their own conclusions? I personally would find a Scofield/Darwin/Coppe exhibit to be very enlightening- even if I think the evidence behind Darwin (Spontaneous Genesis) and Coppe (Intelligent Design) would knock Scofield (Young Earth Creationism) all hollow (but then again, that's how it should be isn't it, since this is in historical order of theories proposed?)
Wow, now that was a little arrogant. Remember if the world was full of smart people then everything would work right, and we would have nothing to do!
Good- that's the way I like it. Automate whatever possible, and use your brain to realize what your place in the world is. Cost cutting is *always* stupid, because it cuts the buying potential of your customers. It's almost as stupid as investing in non-local businesses; 8 cents return for every dollar spent instead of 8 dollars return for every dollar spent is a pretty stupid system. I am arrogant about this- because if we don't get arrogant, the only other option is to capitulate to the stupidity.
Are you going to emulate the spending pattern of old man Scrooge as well as his dress sense?