Posted on 05/17/2022 7:53:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
A growing number of scientists seem finally ready to at least include intelligent design within the ‘range of views’ allowed to be heard.
At first glance, the Potential and Limitations of Evolutionary Processes conference in Israel last week, which I attended, looked like any other scientific meeting on evolution, with talks by highly-credentialed scientists from institutions such as the Technical University of Munich, Cambridge, and the Weizmann Institute. But a closer look at the list of speakers shows that this one was different; it gave a platform to numerous notable proponents of intelligent design.
The conference included chemistry Nobel prize winners Ada Yonath and Sir John Walker, and numerous well-known evolutionary theorists such as University of Chicago molecular biologist James Shapiro and Georgia Tech biophysicist Jeremy England. But this time four or five intelligent design scientists were also invited, including Michael Behe of Lehigh University.
Most, but not all, avoided mentioning design explicitly, but still emphasized the “limitations” of evolutionary processes. Even Rice University chemist James Tour (who considers himself “agnostic” toward intelligent design) argued that origin-of-life researchers have deceived the public into believing that we are close to understanding how life formed, when we are not.
As stated on the conference web page, “the main goal of this unique interdisciplinary, international conference is to bring together scientists and scholars who hold a range of views on the potential and possible limitations of chemical and biological processes in evolution.” The organizers attempted, to a large degree successfully, to create an atmosphere of mutual respect between those who emphasized the “potential” of evolutionary processes, and those who emphasized their “limitations.”
Until recently, intelligent design has been considered an untouchable topic in mainstream scientific circles, where it’s considered axiomatic that everything must be explainable in terms of the unintelligent forces of nature, no matter how implausible and incomplete our current explanations may be. This axiom has worked well in other areas of science, but the problems of explaining the origin and evolution of life without design are inherently much more difficult than other scientific problems (for reasons which are obvious and outlined in my video, “Why Evolution is Different“).
For this reason, a growing number of scientists seem finally ready to at least include intelligent design within the “range of views” allowed to be heard. The meeting in Israel represented an important step in this direction and shows that mainstream science can ignore the obvious for a long time, but not forever.
If you need further evidence that intelligent design is finally being taken more seriously, look at the long list of distinguished scientists endorsing Stephen Meyer’s 2021 book “Return of the God Hypothesis.” Physics Nobel prize winner Brian Josephson said the book “makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science.” Another endorser is Brazilian chemist Marcos Eberlin, whose own book “Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose,” which promotes intelligent design, carries the endorsements of three Nobel prize winners.
Of course, you shouldn’t judge a scientific theory by the number of distinguished scientists or Nobel laureates who support it, and certainly scientists who advocate intelligent design are still only a growing minority. But you should judge a scientific theory by its merits, and you don’t have to be a distinguished scientist to understand the merits of intelligent design. In fact, many already do.
“Bullshiite. We know more and more about the origin in time of our universe with each passing year. The cosmologists are getting down to the first few milliseconds of time in the Big Bang before their math falls apart.”
Just because a tool stops working doesn’t mean you can’t find some new tool that works.
Think of the problems you couldn’t solve before Newton and Co. invented calculus.
Could the big bang be the starting point of the universe? Could be, then again it may not be. We don’t know. Are you 100% sure?
And why are you so desirous that the big bang be the origin of the universe? Answer that question and you’ll discover something surprising about yourself.
“If God chooses scenario B, then you could attribute everything that happens in the world to his choice, as you are arguing. But that neglects to take into account that God is not choosing the unintended consequences themselves, but rather choosing a type of universe in which unintended consequences are possible (or even inevitable). Those are two quite different choices.”
In scenario B, should this god be omnipotent, they would know any consequence of their action, or inaction, beforehand so nothing would be unintentional. Otherwise you’ve completely taken away all meaning of the word omnipotent. You seem to be trying to have it both ways.
if there is ‘intelligent design’, why do we have liberals?
original sin
“mathematics exists independently of man, along with many other things in the universe, and we simply discovered it”
Just one other thought—the critique of your view (Platonism) is often best expressed with the question “Where is it exactly.”
Is there a little corner of the universe where all possible mathematical ideas hang out just waiting for us to find them (sorta a “Treasure Hunt” for Homo Sapiens).
Among the hidden assumptions of all forms of Platonism is that the universe was created “for us”—we are that special.
When “science” starts making too many assumptions it starts to look a lot like religion.
Could the big bang be the starting point of the universe? Could be, then again it may not be. We don’t know. Are you 100% sure?
***That is where the evidence lies. Demanding 100% certainty is a child’s ploy of trying to invoke deductive reasoning onto an inductive pursuit. But I can be sure that compared to where you constantly take this into irrelevancies that yes, I am 100% sure from your perspective.
When “science” starts making too many assumptions it starts to look a lot like religion.
***Commonly known as the religion of scientism.
Intelligent design should not be taken to mean “perfect” design, nor a process without failures, dead ends, or ongoing errors.
In an objective sense one can see “intelligent” design as being a sort of designed acceleration of evolution towards a particular path. A shortcut to someones or somethings desired objective.
The expectation of heaven on earth is not necessary for this.
“In scenario B, should this god be omnipotent, they would know any consequence of their action, or inaction, beforehand so nothing would be unintentional.”
Technically that’s omniscience, but let’s not nitpick. Yes, they might be able to foresee the consequences, but they are still unintended consequences.
Let me illustrate the difference by using a more down-to-earth metaphor. Every parent of a child, is, from the child’s perspective, nearly omniscient. A parent could decide to intervene constantly in the child’s life to prevent them from coming to any harm, or making any choices that would lead to harm. Or the parent could choose to not intervene constantly, so that the child could develop the capacity for independence. If the parent makes the second choice, they would know that it was inevitable the child would suffer some harm in the process, but that does not mean the parent making the second choice is intentionally harming their child.
A God who allows free will to exist in their creation would essentially be making the second choice. They would know that bad things would result as a consequence, but they are not making the choice because they want bad things to happen, but because some harm is inevitable in order for the real goal to be achieved.
“That rules out a creator’s omnipotence then.”
Omnipotence does not mean God WILL always do whatever He CAN do.
He chooses to allow other sentient beings to also have choice (or, more broadly, autonomy and personal responsibility). And choice has consequences.
If He removes the consequences, then they are not consequences.
If He forces all choices, then they are no longer choices.
The existence or possibility of injustice or evil does not negate God’s omnipotence or His love or His goodness, as long as He has the ability to ultimately bring permanent, final, and complete resolution to these things.
In other words, the injustice, evil, pain etc. must be temporary.
But the negative side of this is that many will fall on the side of judgment rather than God’s goodness and mercy. What good is it for a person if God is omnipotent and good if that person does not benefit?
But the bottom line is that sin (whatever is contrary to God’s will) can and does exist without negating either God’s omnipotence (there is nothing God cannot do other than what He will not do) or His goodness.
“Is there a little corner of the universe where all possible mathematical ideas hang out just waiting for us to find them (sorta a “Treasure Hunt” for Homo Sapiens).”
This seems like an inane question hardly worth answering, since it relies on a kind of categorization fallacy, in that you are asking for a location of nonphysical ideas, which by their nature do not have physical locations. The fact that ideas are nonphysical doesn’t make them non-real.
“The fact that ideas are nonphysical doesn’t make them non-real.”
You are digging deep into philosophy again.
You are a Platonist denying a key concept of Platonism.
I don’t even know what “real” means in your sentence.
We can imagine a lot of stuff that is not physical, but you apparently have an unstated criteria for figuring out what non-physical stuff is “real”.
“You are digging deep into philosophy again.”
Well, you wanted to go there, didn’t you? You brought up the argument that my pretty common sense assertions are “Platonism” so you can try to get me to defend that and distract from the main thread of the argument.
“You are a Platonist denying a key concept of Platonism.”
Maybe because I’m not actually a Platonist. That might explain the discrepancy, eh?
“I don’t even know what “real” means in your sentence.”
How about “the opposite of imaginary”? Is that a simple enough definition for you? Something that actually exists in the universe, which is not wholly a product of human imagination. That’s another definition we could use that, in this context, would be nearly interchangeable.
‘We can imagine a lot of stuff that is not physical, but you apparently have an unstated criteria for figuring out what non-physical stuff is “real”.’
Well, the “imagine” part is key. For an idea to be “real” and not “imaginary”, it must exist independently of human imagination. Like the laws of physics, or mathematics.
Your argument is circular.
It is real because it is not imaginary which means it is real.
Plato saw the necessity of “grounding” non-physical stuff that was “real” in a “place” of some sort and then tried to define what the properties of that “place” might be.
You have not.
;-)
“Your argument is circular.
It is real because it is not imaginary which means it is real.”
Nonsense. That’s not my argument, it’s a childish straw man that you created in order to accuse my argument of being circular.
My argument is that mathematics is not invented by man, but discovered, thus mathematics is not “anthropomorphic”. I did not assert that the proof that mathematics is not invented by men is that it is “real”. I only spoke of ideas being “real” in order to point out a flaw in YOUR argument about Platonism.
You in fact did not ask me for evidence that mathematics is not invented by men, you simply accused me of “Platonism” (which is irrelevant), and so since you didn’t ask for evidence, I didn’t provide it. I’d be glad to provide you with evidence if you want it, but you seemed to be more concerned with ascribing some philosophical alignment to me and then critiquing that rather than asking for evidence.
“Plato saw the necessity of “grounding” non-physical stuff that was “real” in a “place” of some sort and then tried to define what the properties of that “place” might be.
You have not.”
Probably because I’m not Plato and I don’t think that Plato was necessarily correct in all of his ideas.
Makes sense. Evidence for intelligent design is ubiquitous as long as there is an intelligent observer.
Let me try again to explain why Plato thought this was an issue.
Plato was a really smart guy.
He understood that before the universe existed there could be no ideas or mathematics.
He also understood that after the universe died (if that happened) there could be no ideas or mathematics.
So the questions were—
When did ideas appear?
How did they appear?
Where did they appear?
Those were valid questions in his opinion.
He attempted to answer them by arguing there was a “realm” or “place” or “dimension” where ideas were.
That meant they were already in place when homo sapiens became sentient, and humans got to use their brain to go on a “Treasure Hunt” to find them.
I would be interested in your attempt to answer Plato’s questions.
Yes, probably the parts of the universe in which the evidence is ambiguous would be more of a testament to the limits of our intelligence, rather than a testament to the lack of design.
I think that is the root of our disagreement. I go back to my Baltimore Catechism: Q. Where is God; A. God is everywhere. I take it that there can be no separation between God and the Universe, his creation: the universe is everything, and you can, if you like, substitute “self conscious universe” or “creator” for the term “God”. It is mathematics, and science, which are separable, abstract concepts, apart from the universe. While they provide us a means of making predictions and understandable explanations for observed phenomena, they cannot explain the prime cause or why we and everything that exists is here.
You can assume, based on current science, that there was a Big Bang, and that everything emerged from a singularity, thus beginning time and the universe, but if you believe that describes everything, the obvious question then is what was there before. Any attempt at a scientific or mathematical explanation for that leads to “It’s turtles all the way down.” This is why I believe that God must be the universe, eternal, without cause, without beginning or end.
As I said originally, we naturally view things anthropomorphically. We experience time as a linear progression: we are born, we live, we did, and so does everything we see, including stars, planets, and even nations. How hard it is for us to conceive of anything with no beginning or end. Contemplating the difference between the world we see based on our mortality and what is eternal, W.B. Yeats put it this way in Sailing to Byzantium (1917), “Consume my heart away; sick with desire And fastened to a dying animal It knows not what it is; and gather me Into the artifice of eternity.”
“if there is ‘intelligent design’, why do we have liberals?
___________________________________________________________
original sin”
***********************************************************
BINGO!
The “intelligent design” is from God.
We chose a “higher calling via a lie”. Therefore, we are not so intelligent.
Oh king! Live forever!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.