This post was inspired by one of my commenters, Soapbox, who started to wonder off the subject on another post, yet I found the subject interesting enough, I thought it merited further discussion, so instead of the normal urging to "Get back to the subject.", I decided to make a whole separate post, so that the discussion on this subject could continue and there is indeed an interesting discussion that follows.
Here is the basic comment that has inspired this post...
Soapbox
"Once we know the equation(i.e., the process, one's own internal compass) by which we are guided and by which we acquire knowledge to proceed forward in life, it becomes more and more of an involuntary sort of action. We need not ponder on them for as long as we may have once before."
I responded with "Once in awhile, we find new information that causes us to rework the entire equation."
The rest of the conversation follows in the comment section below, so please do read on.
If you want to get to the Evolution Theory vs. Intelligent Design Theory discussion, just click on the title of this post and then type either Darwinism or Intelligent Design into the find in this page area of your browser.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
Here are some comments that have been moved over here from another post.
Soabox said...
Once we know the equation (i.e., the process, one's own internal compass) by which we are guided and by which we acquire knowledge to proceed forward in life, it becomes more and more of an involuntary sort of action. We need not ponder on them for as long as we may have once before.
May 12, 2008 6:00 AM
Lista said...
Once in awhile, we find new information that causes us to rework the entire equation.
May 12, 2008 6:39 AM
Soapbox said...
"Once in awhile, we find new information that causes us to rework the entire equation."
I don't agree with that statement at all. And, while I don't intend to hijack your thread, part of commentary to any blog is the natural course of discussion. You may edit this if you wish but I think a perfect example would be the example of Global Warming and the infamous "computer generated models".
The equation ultimately is to find out what the future weather predictions will be. That is the equation.
Importing all of the specifics (i.e., new data) such as water vapor, ocean currents, cloud cover, volcanic eruptions, etc. changes the answer, but it does not change the equation.
May 12, 2008 7:29 AM
You often say stuff that I have trouble responding quickly to off the top of my head, but I am thinking of something that I said on another blog. I think it was Beth's blog. When I have more time, I might go look for it.
Upon examining:
Lista said...
Once in awhile, we find new information that causes us to rework the entire equation.
May 12, 2008 6:39 AM
Soapbox said...
"Once in awhile, we find new information that causes us to rework the entire equation."
"I don't agree with that statement at all."
..I suspect the 'equation' or
'life direction' can be re-written:
for example, a life-long alcoholic
reforms into a tee-totaler. We hear of 'epiphanies', for example, the persecuter Paul changing into
St. Paul. Combat veterans becoming
peace protestors, unassuming women
whose child is killed by a drunk becoming an active leader in MADD,
a fellow I knew who quit his successful business to become a Lutheran Pastor. Whether these
'equation changes' are initiated by an outside event, or some inner churning, they occur. As for the
weather algorithms, these change when better understanding of natural phenomena require, especially since the science is still incipient. Just some thoughts to muddy the water...
Hi you guys,
I'm working from the work computer because it is slow today and my boss told me I could use the computer.
One possible life equation of an alcoholic is "I don't know how to deal with life. Life hurts. Alcohol eases the pain. Since nothing else seems to work, I think I'll have a drink."
Interestingly, in order to make Alcoholics Annonomous work, they had to include the believe in a higher power; something outside of oneself. Once Alcoholics understand God loves them and that there is help from a source outside of themselves, they are finally able to realize that there is a better way; a better life equation.
Hi BB,
Like usual, I'm so glad you dropped by. You're not muddying the water. I think in this case you have helped to clarify it. Thanks.
Different answers require different equations to achieve them. The equations themselves never change. The equations in fact exist and it is simply a case of one subscribing or rather applying the correct equation in the pursuit of the answer.
If the answer I seek is to frame a house, I can't very well look to the process of baking cake to achieve the answer of framing a house. There is an equation which exists for each.
Whereas an alcholic opperates according to one premise or equation, so too does a teetotaler operate on another.
The equation for both exists. The equation itself in both instances is unchanged.
The only thing that does change is one's application of the equation.
That is not to say that something happens that changes the equation itself, but rather something may change which causes the individual to live and operate according to an entirely different equation, set of values, or overall premise.
equations=principles in this case. another way of seeing it is by its parts and this way you can conpare like this
premises = a conclusion (logic)
addends = an answer (math)
principles = a way of life (philosophy)
beliefs = a theology
they all use the same formula, and the end results can be seen as the same, one side is the same as the other side added together. in the kitchen we use the word recipe to make something, same thing in principle.
we all have multiple roles in life and with each of these roles are a separate equation or set of principles to abide by.
being a father or mother is not the same as being a husband or wife. each has their own equation by which to use at any particular time. we can add to that equation or subtract from it as needed but it remains the same equation.
there may even be parts of one equation that is used by another but they still are separate equations.
the sum of the parts = the whole is all each are saying.
See what you started Soapster? A whole new post with a bunch of comments on it.
I sort of think that there's a whole separate equation for every new experience and every new relationship. With relationships, each person has a different set of expectations and needs and the boundaries are not the same. One example of this is that one person you can hug and another you can not.
Cultures are different too, even within the United states. When I used to live in Southern California, I don't think I was ever kissed on the cheek by anyone I wasn't either dating or later married to, yet in the "North State", that is Northern California, I've been casually kissed on the cheek several times, mostly by the elderly, yet not always. There is actually a slight cultural difference. The basic formula or equation for what's considered appropriate casual interaction is thus different according to the area one is in.
So let's get back to one of Soapster's comments. "Once we know the equation (i.e., the process, one's own internal compass) by which we are guided and by which we acquire knowledge to proceed forward in life, it becomes more and more of an involuntary sort of action. We need not ponder on them for as long as we may have once before."
Sometimes only a slight change in our environment, culture or experience, such as acquiring a new friend will cause some level of reflection over which of the many possible formulas should we use in this particular instance. Sometimes we even pick the wrong one and embarrass ourselves.
To imply that there is one basic formula that we can apply to all situations and people is sort of an over simplification of the actual complexity of life.
since when is life all that complex?all of life can be broken down into simple concepts. it is just our viewpoint of life that can be complicated. for instance to put in equation form:
1+1=2
but algebra would say x+x=2x
same formula but a little more complicated. now we can complicate it even more
x/25+x/32=2x as long as x=1
the only difference is between people is which one is used.
now to go back to my previous posted comment and see it works also
1 premise + 1 premise = a conclusion of 2 premises. that's the way logic works.
1 belief + 1 belief = a religious way of life made up of 2 beliefs. that's theology.
its not all that complicated once you see the pattern.
1+1 only implies an interaction between two persons. the interactions of peoples may result in extra addends but the formula remains the same.
what makes life appear to be complicated is the fact we focus on one side of the equation when one side which appears complicated is equal to the other side which appears simple.
This seems a bit like Rene Descartes' mechanistic universe wherein us humans were programmed by the laws of nature; no free will, even spontaneity or impusle
a subconsious predestined act.
In physics, mathematical formulas
are subject to calculus: differential/integral operations which permit an understanding of
where in the change process things stand at a certain instant. So, we can take Soapbox's datasets, solve
five simultaneous equations to a point of minimum Helmholtz Free Engery and determine the temperature inside any explosion.
(that took an old Dell with math coprocessor chip about three minutes, by the way). As I understand the discussion, our
personal 'equations' derive from
some ratio of genetic makeup and perceptive experience: nature/nurture. Could it be that
with the many equations which define the entity 'Griper', we could cruch numbers, do Gaussian derivations, partial Eigenfunctions, dimensionally
graph to some asymptotic future
date and time and predict when he will come down with a cold or run a stop sign? Maybe, maybe not:
there are ever present 'interferences' occuring
in his 'equation & data' situation.
People interacting, rainfall, a bad/good night's sleep, etc. While there are simple 'equations' defining our activity (my invariable first cup of coffee every morning), there are
others more (too?) so complex
they seem beyond mathematical
solution. Example: 1. the psychiatrist declares the patient harmless..the patient commits serial murders: 2. The cat actually comes when called *heh*
3. Scientists working with computer models attempting to predict weather instead came up with the Chaos Theory. So, I'm gonna stay a little skeptical (or stupid, take your pick!) and
leave it to Descartes and Chaos
for the precise answers. :)
Griper,
It is not uncommon for people who feel misunderstood to accuse their misunderstanders of over simplifying. I think that the reason why this occurs is because some people are so hung up on the simplest form of the basic equation 1+1=2.
A person with complicated emotional problems and needs might need the equation "x/25+x/32=2x as long as x=1", but some people are too lazy for all of that and will insist on continually applying 1+1=2 to every situation and refuse to make the necessary adjustments to the basic formula.
Such people are limited in their effectiveness with people and appeal only to average "normal" individuals and don't know how to interact effectively with anyone who's different than the norm.
Research within Psychology comes up with formulas that work for most of the crowd, but there are always those who do not fit the pattern and finding the missing element that needs to be added to the formula can be difficult, thus complicated.
Personally, I don't mind the complexities of life. I think that's what makes life interesting. I don't understand why people want everything to be so simple all the time. Why is complexity considered a negative?
The government insists continually on using formulas that do not work. To Republicans I say, "Expecting the unmotivated and depressed to 'snap out of it' and promptly do this or that is not usually effective." and to the Democrats I say "Giving them a fish and not teaching them how to fish is not effective either." Judging and not trying to figure out solutions that might actually work is another form of laziness.
So often the productive accuse the unmotivated of laziness and don't even realize that the fact that they do not understand is a form of laziness as well.
If I was to say to you "But it just doesn't work that way for me.", instead of judging, why can't you just believe me?
Hi BB,
The way I've been viewing equations or formulas is as a group of items or things that need doing that when added up together will equal a desired result. The very fact that we humans continually use equations and formulas that do not work is evidence that there is indeed free will. The fact that our failed formulas do not work, however, is evidence that there are definitely some standard "laws of nature" that we can not change. This is why finding the necessary formulas that will actually work is necessary and we can not force life to be the way we want it to be without getting the formula right.
Your nature/nurture equation is interesting. If we want to make this even more complicated, how about this one? Nature + Nurture/Free Choice=Person. No one seems to know how large or small the Free Choice part of the equation is.
I'm glad that you see life as complex, BB, whether than simple. That is my feeling as well and I am not bothered by it, whether challenged.
ohhh don't get me wrong, i can see the complexity of life also. its like the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics.
my primary point was that in the three processes i outlined you are using the same formula to come to the answer to any complexities of life. 1+1=2. you are adding all the knowns up and coming to a conclusion. its the unknowns that give us problems.
how many times have you made a decision on something and find out you made a bad one and your reaction was,,"i didn't take this or that into consideration when that decision was made?" i know i have numerous times.
as for the difference between determinism and free will, determinism can be measured with accuracy while free will cannot. hard science declares this.
soft science can measure some aspects by comparison but it cannot measure on the individual basis like hard science can.
hard science has an advantage that the soft sciences do not have, the laws of nature.
we haven't figured out any laws of human behavior yet if there are any. free will would say no. determinism would say yes.
I guess where judgmentalism comes in is when the stronger person assumes that he does know all the unknowns, because after all, "It works for him, so why shouldn't it work for the other person." It's just easier to assume that the other person just isn't trying than to assume that the formula presented is wrong for that person.
The problem with soft science (that is human sciences, such a psychology, sociology, etc.) is that there are too many factors that are unknown, making it difficult to measure even what could be measured if we could just isolate one of the factors, but there are far too many cause and effect relationships all interacting at once, making it impossible to isolate any one factor.
All we can do is measure probabilities and correlations, but all of these are just packed with numerous exceptions.
I'm assuming that you meant this comment to be in the comment section of the Equation Post, whether than the "Why do we Blog?" Post.
Griper said...
1+1=2 lista. The fact that you add another 1 to it doesn't change the equation it still remains an addition problem. 1+1+1=3. Same equation, same formulation, just some additional work involved. lolol
The whole idea of life is to get the highest answer possible, which perfection would be 100%
5/14/08 - 11:42 PM
Lista said...
Yes, 1+1+1=3 is certainly a lot of work. I don't know if I can handle that one. lolol.
"The problem with soft science (that is human sciences, such a psychology, sociology, etc.) is that there are too many factors that are unknown,..."
which is why i have always had my doubts as to giving them the title of being a science. the fact that they use the scientific method of coming to a conclusion does not in itself justify defining them as a science.
and i would also argue that the just the use of the word gives these disciplines greater credibility then they deserve.
science seeks to know and understand the universe as it is. that means coming to conclusions of certainty. and the confidence level is as near to 100% as humanly possible. it was the certainty of science that put man on the moon.
there can be no certainty in the disciplines of pschology and even less certainty in sociology. they can only come to a conclusion of probability.
science, by definition, measures the determinable therefore can predict with certainty. behavior is undeterminable therefore can not be predicted with certainty. and when speaking of behaviors it must be assumed we are speaking only of those behaviors which can be said as controlled by free will.
Oh I don't know. I think that understanding corelations has some merit. It's better than having no information at all. The only time that it becomes a real zoo is when the researchers claim that they know with certainty the cause and effect relationships, cause usually all we know is that two things corelate, but we do not know which of the two factors causes the other, or whether there is a third cause that has contributed to them both.
If there's a possibility of causation, though, avoidance is worth while. Just because certainty is what we would prefer, this doesn't mean that probability is without merit.
From what I've seen of this current "Post-Modern" age, the new generation does not have much trust is science anymore and the focus on the subjective is becoming more and more preferred, which is quite an unfortunate trend. Perhaps if these kids could understand better what science actually is, such as what we are discussing right now; hard vs. soft science; maybe then they would not be as obstinate towards science as a whole.
Even soft science is more reliable than subjectivity based on the experience from any single individual's life. I believe that we can be certain of corelations.
While we are talking about "Soft Science" I wonder how you would describe Darwinism. They teach it as fact, yet since neither the existence nor the none existence of a creator can be proved scientifically, I would say this is also a Soft Science, don't you think? Wouldn't it be nice if they would be willing to admit this and teach it that way in the schools, especially since the subject is taught as early as grade school?
I thought that this might be a change in subject, yet interestingly, it is not. What could possibly be more key to the discussion of "Equations we Live by" than a discussion of the two main "World View Equations" which people base all of their other equations around, which are Darwin's Theory or "Intelligent Design Theory"? First let's admit that these are both Soft Sciences and that there is NOT one that contains Certainty and FACT and another that doesn't.
I didn't know that I was going to be opening up this subject, but than again, why not? Here we go. Why put it off? Let's just do it.
OK, "let's just do it". (Or as Griper would intone "he tentatively approached the keyboard.." Avoiding the nitty-gritty detail, I will posit that
evolutionary theory is a bit more than 'soft science'. While some portions are based on the 'softer' fields of Archeology & Paleontology
and subjective conjecture, natural selection basics are more formally based on the biological sciences.
Biology has become 'harder' as a science since my college days of
collecting insects..we now have
newer subsciences like molecular genetics, biophysics, neuroscience etc. A recent example was the determination of the genes makeup of a sample of Neanderthal bone,
confirming that although hominid, not only were they genetically different, but based on average
mutation vs time, their species
'differentiated' from common hominid stock further back than
originally thought. (Fascinatingly, computer graphing fossil Neanderthal neck bones strongly suggests their voicebox
placement gave them a high pitched childlike voice, if they possessed rudimentary language at all) We will learn more on that as the evolutionary progress of the human FOXP2 gene is further explored:
this gene and/or it's allele is thought to work with other chromosomes in the development of the language areas of our brains.
[most animals have some type of FOXP2, but it is expressed differently in the phenotype, eg.
dogs, for example seemingly understand certain words, as do
some of the primates] Please note I have not used 'fact' once. Evolutionary theory is a working theory, that's why it is not called Evolutionary Fact. This is not my field, although I've read
a fair amount. I feel strongly enough to have entered arguments
with the Discovery Institute
via e-mail. The Institute is the major proponent of Intelligent Design. They have a few scientists, but the overwhelming
majority, as we know, subscribe to evolution. BTW, the term 'Darwinism', how is that used? Is that equivalent to current theory or refer to his original works? (or is it one of those words like liberal which has been re-defined by it's non-proponents? As far as teaching the 'soft science' of evolution in grade school, I have argued (with my Institute friends) that it should be held off until college: not only is it a broad theory, it requires considerable
biology background...to say nothing of the controversies which arise when it is compared and contrasted to religious beliefs concerning creation. The Institute
(some of whom, by the way, accept
great portions of evolutionary theory) feels that evolution has a place in the K-12 curriculum with
the caveat that it be taught side-by-side with intelligent design Therein lies some of the controversy. Some have pondered and written that the old
Scopes Trial' settled nothing, went a way for many years and has become resurgent. But, people believe what they want and as a scientist, I would not force
evolution on anyone against their will, better judgement or belief.
But, it is a fascinating varied field, and required for understanding modern biology.
...er, at least I think so.
Looks like that one got BB's attention. This subject is probably going to be a once a day subject, whether than a several times a day subject, so please forgive me if I post your comment and than ignore it awhile. Don't worry. I'll be back.
In my opinion, I happen to think that dismissing the theory of evolution in favor of Intelligent Design, undermines the very definition of intelligence as it pertains to design.
We are not born with intelligence. Rather, we learn it and acquire it along the way. In essence, it is evolutionary; it develops.
Seems to me that on this premise, they co-exist.
Hi BB,
I hope I don't become too tired before finishing my thoughts on this subject.
Natural Selection is nothing more than the changes that can occur within species, but the actual premise of Evolution is a bit more than that. The cold hard truth is that there has never been a clearly documented case of Natural Selection occurring from one species to the next.
There are documented cases of birds adapting to their environments in the changes in the size of their beaks and even in the size of their brains when the survival situation is challenging enough, yet this is a within species example.
When it comes to breeding, we can come up with a whole variety of different dog breeds or cat breeds or the like, yet no matter how we try, we can not breed a dog to be a cat, or vise versa. No matter how much breeding we do, a cat will always be a cat and a dog will always be a dog.
I think one of the most interesting examples of failures in trying to create new species was an example not about animals, but plants. They did experiments cross pollinating sugar beets to try and get the maximum sugar possible in the beets. They were able to alter the beets in order to get positive results, yet once they reached a certain number, they hit an "Evolutionary Ceiling".
They simply could not get the sugar percentage number above a certain number, no matter how they tried. The change in the beets occurred only because of the intelligent interference of man. When man left the beets alone, the natural, uninterrupted "Natural Selection Process" returned the beets back to to average or norm. Nature did not bring improvement to the beets, but instead a return to the average.
It just so happens that the "Harder Science" of Biology is the one that has found amazing complexities in the body that are impossible to explain by the Natural Selection Process. There are tiny mechanisms in the blood stream that are no less complicated than some of the machines that are created by the "Intelligent Design" of Man. There is one such mechanisms that is just like a motor. Things this complicated do not simply happen by chance.
Ok, so a Neanderthal is a separate species than man. So? Why should we be surprised if we discover an extinct species. This does not in any way prove a connection between that species and either apes or man. Phrases such as "We will learn more on that as the evolutionary progress....is further explored", "IF they possessed..." and "is thought to work with..." show evidence of the uncertainty of this discovery.
Even though, just as you said, Evolutionary Theory is not officially called Evolutionary Fact, it is often taught as fact in the schools, or at best the fact that it is Theory is not at all stressed.
I'm assuming that "Darwinism" refers to the original ideas as presented by Darwin, yet the current theory has done nothing more than try to give support to Darwin's original ideas and theory.
I doubt if you are going to be able to get all teaching of Evolution out of grade school. At the very least, they are going to introduce it and this is the complaint of those who support "Intelligent Design", for if it is even the slightest bit mentioned, than the other Theory should be as well.
This is not about whether or not you, BB, are willing to "force Evolution on anyone", but about whether of not the schools are going to teach this biased opinion to our kids.
Soapbox,
You misunderstand what "Intelligent Design Theory" is. It is not about the intelligence of man, but the intelligence of our creator and suggests that there is significant evidence in the complexities of our world to suggest that an Intelligent Designer, meaning our creator, was involved in the process.
Speciation does not occur like "Bingo"..new species!!
It is a slow process, but (depending on your beliefs) given that life has had a couple billion years to come and go, seems reasonable. While one can google
'speciation' (and read all 1,970,000 articles) the most common argument is the astounding
speciation among the cichlid.
fishes. Clearly, if your view of science is "this biased opinion"
you hold it in low regard. If that works for you, OK. It does not for me: were I to investigate the
the mechanisms of viral infection at the cellular level and be told
'intelligent design', I would have to quit: there's the answer! No
biophysics, no molecular interaction, ultimately no cure
for Alzheimers..no need to look, to explore, to seek, to strive
to understand, to labor under
"this biased opinion". As one who loves science, such an approach would leave me terribly, terribly sad. "Why do salmon migrate?
What initiates cell division?
Why is mitochondrial DNA passed only by the female gene? Forget it, don't wonder...it's covered:
Intelligent Design. If I didn't think it was an intellectual cop-out, I would be distressed, lifeless, and never had a career that filled my life with the excitement of physics, chemistry, mathematics, and other biased opinions ..probably gone on to Anglican seminary and been one unhappy Episcopal priest (mom would have loved it, though :)
I realize and am sorry to be churning out bytes here, but am trying to make the point that ID
may satisify some people, for others, like me, it just sucks
the wonderful feeling of curiosity
and conjecture, the drive to find and cure, understand and know..
sucks it away. Didn't mention fact, did I? *heh* Now, I won't stoop to suggesting that ID is
a "biased opinion", it may be true.
But at this point, as I have argued with the ID'ers (some term them IDiots, but hey, I'm not a mean guy) ID is essentially an
anti-evolution argument, at best
a tenuous theory without the clout
of all the scientific fields behind it. It frustrates me that
science should be essentially mocked by some that don't seem to understand that is is just curious kids in adult cloths doing stuff
of immense import. I can finally empathize with my daughters when they were in their teens, "Dad,
you just don't understand
...whew..when can we get back to abortion? :)
Got your comment. Gotta' run.
he just grins. ahhh the talk of friends even if those friends have never met. tis good. i like it.
Hi BB,
You know, when I said "this biased opinion", I did not at all mean to be offensive. I've only been trying to point out that Darwinism and the Theory of Evolution is a soft science not a hard and certain one. Soft sciences hold just as many biases as bodies of evidence. The preference of Evolution Theory over Intelligent Design Theory or vise versa is a bias and even though scientists try really hard to be fully objective in their research, scientists are people and as people, we all have biases.
Belief in a creator, BB, does not take away the merit of exploring and trying to understand our world. It only changes the focus a little. The exploration of science is yet another way to get to know our creator. As we learn about the beauty of His creation, we can develop all that much more of an appreciation for Him.
Very possibly the very reason that God does not give us all of the answers we seek in life is because of the very thing that you are expressing in that "curiosity and conjecture" contribute to "a wonderful feeling" and "the drive to find a cure, understand and know".
God created us that way, BB. He doesn't want us to stop exploring. That is why He gave us this world in the first place with all it's intrigue and complexity and believe it or not, that is also why in His love for us, He has not answered all our questions, does not cure all our diseases and does not do all of this for us.
Don't you see. It is NOT "covered". In fact, this is so true that many people are upset at God because He does not do more than He does.
In a way, this reminds me of how sometimes the Government will do too much for the people and this "sucks away" from people all their motivation, drive and life, just as Socialism tends to do.
I find it quite interesting that you would have a similar reaction to the very idea that maybe God is going to do too much for you and answer too many of your questions so that there is no longer any need to explore, yet this isn't the case, BB. God is silent on so many things because He knows that there is joy in exploring and learning. He would never take that away. He loves watching us explore and grow and learn and that is the very reason why His creation is as complex as it is.
Intelligent Design IS a biased opinion, BB. If you don't say it, than I will. Both Evolution and Intelligent Design are biased towards their own individual Hypothesis'. This idea does not offend me and it shouldn't offend you either, cause it is simply a fact.
You are also correct in saying that Intelligent Design is an "Anti-Evolution argument", just as Evolution is an Anti-God argument. Even if you did call me an idiot, BB, I would not take offense, because I have studied this enough to know that it isn't so, but thanks for not being a "mean guy". I know you're not and that's why I like you hanging out here at my blog.
I wonder if I should suggest that Evolution is also a tenuous Theory. Yes, it is a Theory. I know that you know that.
I'm not the slightest bit offended with the suggestion that Intelligent Design is a biased opinion and nothing more than a Theory, based on an unproven Hypothesis. This does not offend me because it is true. The thing is, though, Evolution is exactly the same way, so if I'm not taking offense at this fact, than neither should those on the other side of the argument.
Next, she smiles and laughs out loud, as he says "Whew! When can we get back to Abortion?" You're cute, BB. I am going to do more on Abortion, but I think my next post is going to be of more of a spiritual nature.
"Soapbox,
You misunderstand what "Intelligent Design Theory" is. It is not about the intelligence of man, but the intelligence of our creator and suggests that there is significant evidence in the complexities of our world to suggest that an Intelligent Designer, meaning our creator, was involved in the process."
I know what intelligence design is Lista. And, what I'm suggesting is that our creator didn't create them outright. Instead, our creator set forth the process of evolution whereby the complexities develop (i.e., evolve) through the course of nature.
Same thing with the process of life on the human scale. Man is not merely born outright but rather he develops and evolves through the course of a 9 month period.
You are talking about the evolution of one life, a baby in the womb. Evolution Theory is actually more about Evolution from one species to another. We can speculate all that we want about exactly how this creation took place. The only thing that Intelligent Design Theory is trying to establish is that evidence exists that there is a creator. The exact process in which that was done is mere speculation.
"Belief in a creator, BB, does not take away the merit of exploring and trying to understand our world." I would hope not: and I agree. Nor does belief in a creator subvert evolutionary theory. As suggested by Soapbbox,
the attempt to understand natural processes over eons does not lead to an atheist conclusion. We know there are atheist evolutionists (interesting wondering if their athiesm led them to evolution or their evolution studies led them to atheism..hmm) but there are far more scientists that accept both
religion and evolution.
How can that be? Because no one knows the ultimate details of the beginnings...at least scientifically. The problem, IMO,
is the gap in understanding between the biblical literalists: basic creationsim, six days, Oct
15, a Monday, the year [0], precisely 6872.34 years ago, written in the original Hebrew, the unerring word of God..and those (just as much believers) who interpet the biblical writings as
religous poetic philosophy, history and allegory. These latter feel no contradiction, they know that God created the universe, that all life are utlimately his children...but the fascinating details are open to conjecture, examination, categorization etc.
Many, not all, scientists feel
FEEL that ID is a construct, originating from the
stict creationist POV, and indeed some of the same people are the movers and shakers. And that argument started before
Darwin, reached a catharsis in the Scopes trial (movie Inherit The Wind..pretty good, Spencer Tracy) and lingers on painfully. IMO at it's most basic, the church is saying, "Hey, this is MY territory!" ..and the argument
invariably boils down to "here's my proof" "I don't believe that, here's mine" I suppose in some way, our perceptions in the matter relate to Griper's life equations: we present and defend them, etc.
So, guess I'll relent and go stand in the common sense shade of,
"he just grins. ahhh the talk of friends even if those friends have never met. tis good. i like it."
..he kinda grows on ya..:)
Intelligent Design advocates and Creationists are not the same thing, BB. Creationism is a belief system based on faith in what is written in the scriptures. Intelligent Design Theory carefully uses what is required by science to find support for their "Hypothesis" (a scientific term). They do not make any claims that they can not find scientific evidence for. If something is written in the scriptures, but not in the creation, they remain silent on the issue.
Those who wish to criticize and undermine the efforts of Intelligent Design advocates are continually calling them Creationists instead so that they can then turn and accuse these scientists of holding a belief based on faith, instead of science.
Atheists are very highly threatened by the Intelligent Design advocates because they seem to have a strong desire to preserve their treasured Atheism.
We went to see that documentary that played in some of the theaters called "Expelled". It talked about how certain people in the scientific community had lost their jobs because of writing papers about the subject of Intelligent Design. One of these people was a professor at a University that claimed to stand for the freedom of expression in the area of truth and knowledge, yet to lay someone off for simply mentioning Intelligent Design in a paper is not hardly freedom of expression, now is it?
The discrimination that takes place within the scientific community against those who try and rock the boat and go against what is accepted by the already established norm keeps some Intelligent Design advocates quiet so that it appears that the position is much rarer than it is.
In this documentary, it was actually pointed out that Hitler was a strong believer in and was inspired by Darwin's ideas. They also interviewed a few scientists that admitted that their studies in Evolution helped influence their journey towards Atheism.
Since Atheists are generally quite threatened by Christianity, it's really not surprising that they are quite threatened by Intelligent Design Theory as well.
It is not really necessary for the Church to say "Here's my proof." Evolution doesn't have any absolute proof of anything either, so if we can't really prove anything either way, than we are on equal ground and both arguments have merit.
The original life equation idea in this post came from Soapbox, not Griper, yet Griper's words that you quoted are indeed precious.
Your words; "He kinda grows on ya..:)". Ah yes. Indeed he does. Sometimes I just want to hug him, yet if I do that, I have to at least offer a hug to every one in the room. That's the rule. I can't show favoritism. I guess my favorite is my husband. I know him better than any of you, so I guess I'll just keep him. lol.
That being said, she flashes BB a smile and says "If you ever want a hug in some subtle cyberspace sort of way, I give out such things freely, so come here, you, and consider yourself hugged." :) :) If anyone else wants one just say so.
Concerning "They also interviewed a few scientists that admitted that their studies in Evolution helped influence their journey towards Atheism." I have not seen the film but will "boldy go where
no..". I suspect two of these
scientists were Dr. Richard Dawkins, whose books I've read, naturally; and Dr. P.Z Meyers.
At Meyers site Pharyngula
[warning: atheists evolutionist site] http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php we see another side of the coin: in Minneaplis, he went to see the film 'Expelled'. Police removed him from the line, although his wife was permitted to go in. The irony was that Richard Dawkins was not recognized and was left to go in to see the film also. His story has drawn 2031 posts, mostly anti-Expelled. The last time police kept me from a movie was in the deep south in the early sixties..two whites, two chinese and two blacks..attempting, foolishly perhaps, to overturn a proud custom of the Old South. So, I can identify with being manhandled by authorities for something as seemingly innocuous as wanting to see a movie. You seem familiar with ID arguments and folks, so the name Dr. Scott Minnich, Microbiology professor and ID proponent. My daughter had courses from him and reported "Dad, he's exactly like you...reclusive and smokes a pipe". So, naturally I just have to like the guy! Dr. Minnich understands the flagella of microorganisms to be of such structure that it could not have evolved, but required intelligent design. He testified in the Kitzmiller vs Dover schoolboard case..for your edification find
Discovery Institute's Casey Luskin (nice guy, even e-mails us evolution proponents back and forth) take on Minnich's thoughts here: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1448
and keep in mind that Mr. Luskin is a lawyer first and marine biologist second. :) To summarize: 1. Expelled claims ID is unfairly treated by 'mainline' biology
2. ID proponents have critic arrested
3. ID professor still on the job
smoking his pipe.
and it smacks of immaturity when anyone should get fired over their beliefs, and we should remember
that ID people fire evolution people as well: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/texas-science-c.html
I suspect you are right about "scientists that admitted that their studies in Evolution helped influence their journey towards Atheism." ..but studying the writings of Christianity can do that also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman (yes, I've got his books too, and exchanged e-mails about the interpetations of Pascal's
Wager) ..he rests his fingers on the keyboard, reflects and thinks,
'what an interesting topic' and chuckles, 'sure glad Lista doesn't have 2031 posts on it' then frowns...'yet'...furrows his brow and mutters..'I'm writing in Griperese :)
Unfortunately, I remember facts and concepts, but not names. I'm feeling sort of tired tonight. Once again I'm looking at all your links and recommended reading and wondering why I am trying to educate someone who is obviously quite good at educating himself. Even if there are still things that I do not know, it does my heart good to write down what I do know. It makes me feel like I'm getting important information out there somehow.
Perhaps you've already read about the Irreducible Complexity idea. That is another argument that really impressed me. It's too bad this stuff takes so much effort to explain. I'm almost too tired right now to do anything more than an outline. Maybe I can fill it in between the lines later.
The other thing that is impressive is DNA, because it is like a language.
The way I heard this explained to me is that when you see a squiggly line in the sand, you recognize it as something that was produced naturally by wind, water or whatever and you might even see things in the dirt that actually look like certain letters and still conclude that that was produced somehow by nature, yet when you see actual words, sentences and even paragraphs spelled out perfectly in the sand, you right away recognize this as language and as the direct result of the presence of another intelligent being; that is, another human being.
This is what DNA is like. It is actually a language and in fact a whole complicated code of pages and pages of instructions. Anyone who looks at this honestly has got to recognize this.
he laughs, "gripereze" huh? good arguments from both sides here. the only thing i can add is that, in time, we'll all have the answer of certainty. and i think we all agree on that. until then we are stuck with probability and possibility.
I'm feeling inspired and really do wish that I had the time to write out some more of my thoughts, yet unfortunately I have limited time and need to run again.
She smiles. You know, I just love "Gripereze". I wouldn't care if it spread all across my blog and everyone started doing it.
Griper, BB,
Love ya' both. God has just filled my life with special friends. Got to run again. You guys take care and I'll be back some time this afternoon.
"This is what DNA is like. It is actually a language and in fact a whole complicated code of pages and pages of instructions. Anyone who looks at this honestly has got to recognize this." Agreed. DNA is a language: a mathemtical working code. Chemicals..just chemicals of 4 common bases sticking out from a helix of deoxynucleic acid. Chemicals which can replicate themselves, or depending on the base arrangement, instruct
surrounding smaller chemicals to
become specific proteins: same process in a virus, toad or me.
[I'll return to that thought, if I remember] Obliquely, but still ID,
we added a new baby girl, a grandaughter, 3 days back: since
Johanna Ingrid's parents are both
PhD chemists, it seemed she may have been a product of Intelligent Design (ouch!) Zagging the other way, stupid (evolutionary product)me has been trying to learn HTML tags so I can embed a link, rather than a reader have to copy and paste. You know, the type of thing any third grader does almost inately? Let's try an article on teaching evolution in high school
at
and see if
1. it works
2. comes up in Greek
3. turns your site upside down.
..isn't learning fun? *sigh*
Back to the beginning, about DNA
and biomolecular physiology: all this 'chemistry of life' is enabled by the chemical we know as an enzyme. It would take an incredibly long time for DNA to
effect chemical building if it waited (sorry for the teleology, but it's simpler) for each correct bit of chemical to come along in a random millieu of chemicals. But
specific enzymes temporarily hitch on and place them, thus speeding up the process thousands, even
millions of times. It is mindboggling, the complexity, and if we google 'genome' we find 47,000,000 sites...and learn even more complexity. I guess the argument seems to boil down to
"too complex..couldn't have evolved, has to be ID" vs "Excitingly complex, haven't got all the details yet, but boy, are we working on it"
...he tentativley presses the preview button; finds he made a broken HTML tag..where's a good enzyme when you need one? Ponders
in bewilderment and finds a critical " is missing. Still highly skeptical, he punches "publish your comment"
button...
this will be my last comment in this thread. it is getting too long and i'm too old to scroll all the way down anymore, hard work you know. lol
and to think it all began with an innocent comment by soapbox. lol
neither science nor religions should feel threaten by the other. they are two separate fields of study. there is some overlap, on this i will agree because they both are coming to conclusions using the same material of study, our lives and universe.
we have nothing else. thus, if we have nothing else compatibility needs to be recognized by both. both are seeking the truth of life.
religions should see science as a helpmate not as a foe. for with the use of science religions can refine their beliefs and give their beliefs greater credibility.
the big problem surrounding the issue is our own laziness of speech. we use the word "sciences" when we should clarify it by using the phrase "physical sciences."
and it be here that scientist disagree with those who advocate for the ID theory. for they see ID theorists crossing the line into the metaphysical realm and that is a no-no.
and advocates of ID only give credibility to that charge by substituting the word God for the phrase Intelligent Design in their defense of the theory.
Didn't work too good did it? Peachy keen, drat! ..he wonders if it was because he fixed two broken tag links in the preview mode?, onset of Alzhemeier's, a senior moment...and gives himself an F. Any professional advice? *sigh* Griper may have the right idea, back off and view it as one who has 'no horse in the race'..objectively. Back to my
embedded link..please feel free to join me in laughing at myself :)
Hang in there, BB, you're getting it. I'm working on a longer response to you and gripper, but wanted to say this quick hello first.
BB,
So what are you saying, BB? Are you implying that those who do not know how to do HTML links are descendants of Apes and those who do are products of Intelligent Design? Oh, I see. That clears it up for me. lol.
There was no Greek and all is still upright, so you passed the test. Whew!! That was a close call! You almost revealed yourself to be a monkey. lol.
You don't have to put so many words within the link, though. Just the title of the said web page would have been enough. You're getting it.
Sounds like you understand the basic thrust of the Intelligent Design argument.
Griper,
You could try using the "Find on this page" feature of your browser. In FireFox, it's part of the pull down menu under Edit. Type in either Intelligent Design or Darwinism and it will take you down to the beginning of the discussion of this particular subject. It will save at least some of the scrolling. I guess I wouldn't want to over work your finger on the mouse button. lol.
In my opinion it is the evolutionists that are feeling threatened. All the the Christians want is for the two theories to be taught side by side. That's just a desire to be included. Evolutionists don't want Intelligent Design taught at all. That's discrimination.
Intelligent Design is not religion. It's a science. Creationism is based on faith, but Intelligent Design is based on science just as much as Evolution Theory is. Both of these Theories are based on two separate unproven Hypothesis in order to explain the same phenomena scientifically. Religion is NOT the focus. Science is.
You suggested that "Religions should see science as a helpmate, not as a foe." That is exactly what Intelligent Design Scientists are doing. It is the Atheists that are seeing Intelligent Design Theory as their foe and trying to stifle it.
As to your last two paragraphs, I have a reply, but I wanted to use a quote that I don't have handy at the moment, so I'll put that off.
BB,
Hang in there, Babe. It's Ok. I wouldn't give you an F. Your link actually works, you just have two many words between the HTML tags. I'm going to give you a B, yet I'm sure you will accomplish the A soon and maybe even a gold star. lol.
When I explain these things, I do it by replacing the greater than/lesser than sighs (HTML Brackets) with ". There is some use of ' though before and after the web address, so here is the HTML tag for the hyper link that you are trying to do. "a href='http://www.scientificblogging.com/etc. etc. etc.'"Scientific Blogging"/a". Replace all the "s with HTML Brackets and don't forget to leave in the 's. I hope that helps.
You know, forgive me for calling you babe. I actually removed that word and then put it back and then removed it and then put it back. You're just going to have to forgive me. Apparently, it's just how I talk when I'm trying to comfort someone who seems discouraged. When I removed it, it just didn't sound the same.
I wonder if Griper's right about this thread becoming too long. One thought I had was that we could just take a break from it for awhile and than maybe I'll go back and reread some of the comments again and do a separate post that summarizes some of these thoughts and starts the conversation all over again.
My next post is going to be a spiritual one and than maybe a few days after that, I'll return to this subject again, of something else. What do you think?
Babe? ..coincidence, my dad was called that from the day he was born til the day he died. Going back over the thread reminds me
that am am guilty of wordiness.
In the interest of improvement,
am closing..:)
I made another post just now. It's not that big of a deal, but it is the beginning of another comment thread, just in case you do still feel like talking.
Post a Comment