View Full Version : Scientists and Intelligent Design
secrets in symmetry
08-Dec-11, 11:09
In a recent post (in a now-closed thread), ducati wrote:
Some very eminent and renowned scientists are theorising that the Universe is so perfect in its make-up, down the quantum level, that the probability of intelligent design is now seen as very high.
The creationists might be on to something after all. Can you list some of those "very eminent and renowned scientists", and provide us with some links to their work?
I was going to make this request by PM, but I thought the topic might be of wider interest.
I suspect either these 'scientists' aren't very eminent and renowned scientists or once again people are misinterpreting quantum theory. Relevant YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqcaaUtPdAo).
No, look it up yerself, I have given you the clue just use Google.
I suspect either these 'scientists' aren't very eminent and renowned scientists or once again people are misinterpreting quantum theory. Relevant YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqcaaUtPdAo).
Household names, I assure you.
Yet the vast majority more have the opposite view...
have you found them yet SIS?
secrets in symmetry
08-Dec-11, 13:06
I suspect either these 'scientists' aren't very eminent and renowned scientistsThat would be my best guess.
or once again people are misinterpreting quantum theory. Relevant YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqcaaUtPdAo).Possibly.
I couldn't find anything along the lines you mention, ducati.
Could some people be confusing fine tuning with quantum theory? In principle, the former has nothing to do with the latter - unless you know something new....
That would be my best guess.
Possibly.
I couldn't find anything along the lines you mention, ducati.
Could some people be confusing fine tuning with quantum theory? In principle, the former has nothing to do with the latter - unless you know something new....
Not me, I'm not a scientist.
You wouldnt expect to find this stuff on the front google page would you? Try Nature or New Scientist.......or the Discovery channel.
weezer 316
08-Dec-11, 14:41
Dont get me started......
Sure the Earth was designed by an Intelligent Being.........................I thought everyone knew that Slartibartfast did part of the designing.
Dont get me started......
No....please dont get him started!!!
C3.............;);)
oldmarine
08-Dec-11, 16:34
Sure the Earth was designed by an Intelligent Being.............
From all the comments I have read on this thread, this one by Kodiak makes the most sense.
secrets in symmetry
08-Dec-11, 16:50
Not me, I'm not a scientist.
You wouldnt expect to find this stuff on the front google page would you? Try Nature or New Scientist.......or the Discovery channel.New Scientist devoted an issue to the "Multiverse" a couple of weeks ago. I read the editorial, but much of it was either sensationalist crap or blatant nonsense, so I didn't look any further....
Dont get me started......Why not lol? What do you think weezy?
One a side note, it's funny to watch Creationists and Raelians argue, they basically believe the same crap but one believes the intelligent designer was god and the other believes it was aliens. Ignoring the entire body of evidence for a moment and just focusing on one thing: There are so many things inefficiencies with the universe, nature and biology that there's no way they were designed, the human body has some prime examples of this.
Well the guy that designed that nerve to go from a giraffes ear and then down its neck, around the heart and lungs a few times and then back up the neck just to go to the throat wasn't very intelligent at all.
Well the guy that designed that nerve to go from a giraffes ear and then down its neck, around the heart and lungs a few times and then back up the neck just to go to the throat wasn't very intelligent at all.
Actually Rheghead, that is very funny, quite agree with you. Good god (small g) - what have I written!
Getting away from the argument over intelligent design vs natural processes which is irrelevant since we still do not know how the universe began the one thing we can be assured of with pretty much 100% certainty is that it did not happen in the way that the bible says it did.
secrets in symmetry
08-Dec-11, 23:35
We are pretty sure we know what happened a mere 10-10s after the Big Bang, and at all times thereafter - modulo the odd puzzle such as the precise mechanism of Baryogenesis.
Assuming inflation is correct, we think we might even know more or less what happened starting roughly 10-37s after the Big Bang. What happened before that, and what caused the Bang, is still unknown.... Was it our God wot dun it? Or Rael's God? Or even our own Weezy? :cool:
We are pretty sure we know what happened a mere 10-10s after the Big Bang, and at all times thereafter - modulo the odd puzzle such as the precise mechanism of Baryogenesis.
Assuming inflation is correct, we think we might even know more or less what happened starting roughly 10-37s after the Big Bang. What happened before that, and what caused the Bang, is still unknown.... Was it our God wot dun it? Or Rael's God? Or even our own Weezy? :cool:
Most of the above was questioned by a prog. I saw last night on the Discovery Science channel. I think it was called something like; Is everything we think we know about the Universe wrong?
weezer 316
09-Dec-11, 18:42
We are pretty sure we know what happened a mere 10-10s after the Big Bang, and at all times thereafter - modulo the odd puzzle such as the precise mechanism of Baryogenesis.
Assuming inflation is correct, we think we might even know more or less what happened starting roughly 10-37s after the Big Bang. What happened before that, and what caused the Bang, is still unknown.... Was it our God wot dun it? Or Rael's God? Or even our own Weezy? :cool:
It was me. Infact there is a higher likelyhood of me doing it seeing as there is evidence to support my existence, and it doesnt contradict itself.
Not that default positions are taken in my such arguments of course. Thats not the answer they are looking for with their 'open' minds.
Ill go away now
secrets in symmetry
09-Dec-11, 18:45
Most of the above was questioned by a prog. I saw last night on the Discovery Science channel. I think it was called something like; Is everything we think we know about the Universe wrong?The programme is evidently called Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rgg31)
The title is completely over the top - meaning misleading - and there is plenty of sensationalist melodramatic commentary, but the clips I watched were mostly correct - largely because the scientists themselves did most of the talking.
No-one knows what dark matter is, but you can work out its effects, and how much of the stuff you need, because it's dark and it doesn't do much! Similarly for dark energy, which is easily accommodated in General Relativity - even if you don't know what it's made of! Inflation is tougher because you need to know more of the details, but the observed universe fits the predictions of inflationary cosmology staggeringly well.
The most contentious issue mentioned on the programme's website is that of "dark flow". I know much less about this, but as far as I can ascertain, the evidence for it is still controversial.
Since cosmology is still an active science, there are still unsolved issues after 10-10s, but they are not thought to need new paradigms.
I saw that program. It was very good. Scientists being humble is always worth seeing ;)
secrets in symmetry
09-Dec-11, 19:02
It was me. Infact there is a higher likelyhood of me doing it seeing as there is evidence to support my existence, and it doesnt contradict itself.
Not that default positions are taken in my such arguments of course. Thats not the answer they are looking for with their 'open' minds.
Ill go away nowDon't go Weezy, not before you've told us how you did it!
SIS & REQ.......Are you being serious or just funning! Claude aka Rael seems to be a total nutbar, but at least he has fun...i.e. sex fun, so to quote him and his followers is null and void...Stephen H is now warning us about aliens.............
Does no one have a clue?? And if so why not....I mean we gave you that woman who is doing a great job running the Royal Mail/ I shall have to find another Canuck who can sort this mess out....
weezer 316
09-Dec-11, 23:03
Don't go Weezy, not before you've told us how you did it!
Haha! Easy. Its a shame your non-godlike brain cant comprehend it otherise I would tell you!
As I ahve godlike poweres I cant contradict myself you see, even when it looks like I have, its you thats wrong.
We each have our own universe and some parts of each cross/pass through others. Somehow some people just want to put things into boxes so as to have something to work from. Those who feel comfortable with things identified and put into such boxes are denying themselves truths about the universe they are in. Take off those blinkers, drop the social conditioning's, open ALL your minds and reach out for the opportunities this condition holds...
Angel...
Haha! Easy. Its a shame your non-godlike brain cant comprehend it otherise I would tell you!
As I ahve godlike poweres I cant contradict myself you see, even when it looks like I have, its you thats wrong.
Could your god like powers run to a spell check once in a while?
John Little
10-Dec-11, 09:01
Is "Design" empirical?
weezer 316
10-Dec-11, 13:59
Could your god like powers run to a spell check once in a while?
As I said Duke, its you thats wrong.
My spelling is actually superb, I just type too slow. My brain is halfway along the sentence just as I type the start!
secrets in symmetry
10-Dec-11, 21:04
Haha! Easy. Its a shame your non-godlike brain cant comprehend it otherise I would tell you!
As I ahve godlike poweres I cant contradict myself you see, even when it looks like I have, its you thats wrong.I'll have to take your Word for that weezy my Son.
We each have our own universe and some parts of each cross/pass through others. Somehow some people just want to put things into boxes so as to have something to work from. Those who feel comfortable with things identified and put into such boxes are denying themselves truths about the universe they are in. Take off those blinkers, drop the social conditioning's, open ALL your minds and reach out for the opportunities this condition holds...
Angel...OMG Angel! Are you feeling OK? You are sound a bit like the Crazy with the Crystals when you post wishy washy words that sound like postmodernist crap - and that is worrying....
Is "Design" empirical?A good question John! Well, it might be...if I understood it. What does it mean lol?
John Little
10-Dec-11, 21:08
Good Lord SiS - you are the Scientist here!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
Empiricism in the philosophy of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism) emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment). It is a fundamental part of the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) that all hypotheses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses) and theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) must be tested against observations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation) of thenatural world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_world) rather than resting solely on a priori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_(philosophy)) reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning), intuition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(knowledge)), or revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation).
Good Lord SiS - you are the Scientist here!
Sorry John, you are wrong.....I can confirm that SiS isn't a scientist!!!
C3............:roll:;)
secrets in symmetry
10-Dec-11, 22:33
Good Lord SiS - you are the Scientist here!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
Empiricism in the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism)philosophy of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science) emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment). It is a fundamental part of the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) that all hypotheses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses) and theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) must be tested against observations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation) of thenatural world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_world) rather than resting solely on a priori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_(philosophy)) reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning), intuition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(knowledge)), or revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation).
Yes, I'm a Scientist, not a Philosopher. My opinion on the latter coincides with Stephen Hawking's (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html).
This article by Christopher Norris (http://www.philosophynow.org/issue82/Hawking_contra_Philosophy) provides significant empirical support for Hawking's view.
Yes, I'm a Scientist,
Err!! Are you sure about that SiS?
C3................[disgust][disgust]
John Little
10-Dec-11, 22:38
Thank you - this needs digestion- I'll have a read of it and a think.
secrets in symmetry
10-Dec-11, 22:59
I should add that, in my opinion, Stephen Norris is one of the few Philosophers of Science that actually has a clue. Indeed, in my (rather limited) experience, he is the only one that has a clue.
Gosh... 'postmodernist' Ive just been upgraded into yet another box by a 'postmodernist' trying to sound even cleverer... Is this a date then SIS and there is nothing wrong with Crystals...
Angel...
John Little
10-Dec-11, 23:50
I'm having a read; I love this bit;
"These thinkers appear unworried – blithely unfazed, one is tempted to say – by the fact that their theories are incapable of proof or confirmation, or indeed of falsification as required by Karl Popper and his followers. After all, it is the peculiar feature of such theories that they posit the existence of that which at present, and perhaps forever, eludes any form of confirmation by observation or experiment."
My point about design was to ask its nature. I am no scientist but the very phrase intelligent design is so loaded. 'Design' is subjective anyway. If you ask a thousand inventors to design a potato peeler then you will get 1000 designs. They will, of course have something in common - they will all peel potatoes. They may even have certain common features to a certain percentage.
But there is no one perfect potato peeler.
Intelligent design implies to me one of several things.
1.....There is a designer behind creation - an intelligence is responsible for it. If that is so, then it may imply the existence of other intelligences and other designs, because, by my analogy, design is subjective. So if design is empirical and also intelligent, then it is created. and if created, then there must be a creator.
2..... In another case, if design is empirical but not intelligent, then it must follow certain laws which are those of Physics because it follows paths which are observable, predictable and rational.
I'm not finished reading- and will continue manana - but it's a very thought provoking article and I'm very pleased with it - merci beaucoup!!!
secrets in symmetry
11-Dec-11, 01:49
Gosh... 'postmodernist' Ive just been upgraded into yet another box by a 'postmodernist' trying to sound even cleverer... Is this a date then SIS and there is nothing wrong with Crystals...
Angel...I am a scientist, your utterings were postmodernist. There is a huge difference.
There is nothing wrong with cyrstals, unless you believe they have healing properties....
John Little
11-Dec-11, 07:54
3.... if there is a creator, and design is empirical then we must allow for the possibility of other creators. It would be unreasonable not to do so. There also follows the question of who created the creator (s) and who created the creator's creator - and so on- creator squared with an infinity mark. This underscores the point that we are thinking in human and earthly parameters where there is necessarily a beginning and an ending to things. We also think in earthly and human terms when we require things to have a maker. And to have one maker is perhaps more of a reflection of human society throughout the ages, particularly a paternalistic feudal society rather than a cosmic intelligence. We attempt to stamp our definitions and understandings on something we do not fully comprehend; rather like ascribing the cause of headaches to evil spirits.
4.... if design is intelligent, then the definition of intelligence may have to shift. I do not know much about Artificial intelligence but it seems from what I know, that a machine can be programmed until it has a kind of intelligence. May not the laws of Science program a series of events that could be construed or interpreted as 'intelligent'. If so then 'Intelligent design' is a fact, but not relating to a conscious creator, but the mechanisms which rule the universe?
5...If Intelligent design is not empirical, then it does not relate to the workings of science; it becomes irrational. If it is irrational, yet it exists, then other possibilities may occur where Science works in a different way. A vision of parallel universes comes into mind where Harry Potter flies round on a broomstick, and magic is real....
6.... Lastly for now; We have to allow for the possibility of some sort of Intelligent design. However, if we do, it is absolutely not empirical.
It cannot be; to allow such a concept is a contradiction of Science.
Therefore, although we may allow the teaching of Intelligent Design as a valid concept in our schools, it has no place in the Science classroom and should be taught either in Philosophy or Religious Education lessons.
I'm still reading... ;)
John Little
11-Dec-11, 08:31
I like the paragraph ending 'pseudo-science'. I do not think any rational being would wish to stop scientists theorising; that surely is what forming a hypothesis is about? But it's a giant leap to move from Theory into Fact. Fields like Mathematics and Science have their truths, and if you suddenly want to change the rules of scientific method to include those of historical method, then you are going to have a problem- because theory will be presented as fact.
In the study of History this is called Bias or Polemic; it must surely be the same in Science.
But there is a difference. In History, when I am looking at evidence then it is valid for me to speculate on the motives behind human actions in the past. I actually hurt no-one directly. It is true that I may present my findings as Propaganda and influence behaviour and outcomes. As an indirect result of my interpretation revolutions may occur, people may die and wars may be fought. But not directly.
With Science presenting your theory as fact can impact far more dangerously. The case of the MMR vaccine is the one that springs to mind. Study after study has found no link at all between Autism and that vaccine. The doctor who came up with it has been found guilty of malpractice and struck off. Lives have been affected directly by what he did.
Science has to remain Science.
The moment you allow that it might be something else, then it is no longer Science and its credibility is gone.
I do not see how a single scientist can allow for Intelligent Design in the philosophy of his/her craft.
I read on...
"Thus it is counter-productive for everyone concerned, philosophers and physicists alike, when Quine and others suggest that we should always be willing to change the ground-rules of logic so as to help us find room for certain otherwise puzzling, anomalous, or downright baffling results"
Yay! Completely agree.
"Likewise absent from Hawking’s account is philosophy’s gatekeeper role in spotting those instances where science strays over without due acknowledgement from one to another mode, or – as frequently happens nowadays – where certain evidential constraints are lifted and empirically informed rational conjecture gives way to pure fabulation."
I could not agree more.
"For it is equally the case that hostility or indifference toward philosophy can sometimes lead scientists, especially those with a strong speculative bent, not only to reinvent the wheel but to produce wheels that don’t track straight and consequently tend to upset the vehicle."
Putting the boot in or what!
"To adapt the economist Keynes’ famous saying: those scientists who claim to have no use for philosophy are most likely in the grip of a bad old philosophy or an insufficiently thought-out new one that they don’t fully acknowledge."
Ouch!
Okay - finished reading it and enjoyed it a lot. I've not had such a rewarding think for ages. It really made my mind up and gave the whole idea of Intelligent Design a churning; and I will continue to think on it. Norris ain't supporting Hawking though - he's putting the boot in big time.
This from an outsider looking in;
Intelligent Design has no place in Science other than as a way out on the margin speculation. Any self-respecting scientist should resist its admission into scientific reality tooth and nail.
Aaldtimer
11-Dec-11, 18:50
...[QUOTE=John Little;912443]
"For it is equally the case that hostility or indifference toward philosophy can sometimes lead scientists, especially those with a strong speculative bent, not only to reinvent the wheel but to produce wheels that don’t track straight and consequently tend to upset the vehicle."...
JL, this article would seem to agree...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16110088 :)
secrets in symmetry
11-Dec-11, 22:20
...
"For it is equally the case that hostility or indifference toward philosophy can sometimes lead scientists, especially those with a strong speculative bent, not only to reinvent the wheel but to produce wheels that don’t track straight and consequently tend to upset the vehicle."...
JL, this article would seem to agree...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16110088 :)
I concur with Lisa Jardine's comments about Lindemann, but the connection with John's quote is weak. What was needed - and is still needed - is more scientifically trained people in government. The last thing we need is more PPE graduates from Oxford!
(PPE = Philosophy, Politics and Economics)
John Little
11-Dec-11, 22:24
I go along with that. We could certainly use more of a Technocracy element in government more than the Plutocracy that we have at the moment. More research, development, and more than 13% of our economy in manufacturing - then we might get our edge back.
Argh, post modern relativism. The stupid, it hurts.
Philosopher: I'm not sure who created that or how it works, isn't it fascinating.
Religious Person: I'm not sure who created that or how it works, therefore god exists.
John Little
12-Dec-11, 09:04
LOL!
The trouble with that Req is that it does not allow for the Philosopher who believes in God...
You forgot the Engineer: "lets take it to bits and find out!"
weezer 316
12-Dec-11, 13:12
Or the scientist who says "lets build a model and test it based on what we see.....and adjust it as neccesary"
secrets in symmetry
13-Dec-11, 01:27
As interesting as Philosophy may be, this thread was inspired by ducati's post:
Some very eminent and renowned scientists are theorising that the Universe is so perfect in its make-up, down the quantum level, that the probability of intelligent design is now seen as very high.I still don't know who these "very eminent and renowned scientists" are. I saw a lot of scientists on the clips from the Discovery programme, but I didn't see anyone claim that "the probability of intelligent design is now seen as very high".
As interesting as Philosophy may be, this thread was inspired by ducati's post:
I still don't know who these "very eminent and renowned scientists" are. I saw a lot of scientists on the clips from the Discovery programme, but I didn't see anyone claim that "the probability of intelligent design is now seen as very high".
Oh' I did. But not that programme. :D
John Little
13-Dec-11, 08:39
Hmmmm- I just googled; Scientists say "the probability of intelligent design is now seen as very high".
And it came up with one result - this thread! ;)
Hmmmm- I just googled; Scientists say "the probability of intelligent design is now seen as very high".
And it came up with one result - this thread! ;)
There you go John, no smoke without fire.
John Little
13-Dec-11, 08:42
Now that would make a good thread on its own!!
The old hadron collided blokes are getting in a lather about the 'God' particle at the mo. Very amusing that the 'News' programmes keep trotting out Physicists to 'explain' it all to Joe public. [lol]
The old hadron collided blokes are getting in a lather about the 'God' particle at the mo. Very amusing that the 'News' programmes keep trotting out Physicists to 'explain' it all to Joe public. [lol]
Has any of our own .Org scientists appeared on the telly then Duke?
I didn't recognise any this afternoon when I watched it!!
C3...................:roll:;)
The media which is mostly full of liberal arts and humanities people handles science and technology so badly. It's as if they're proud in their ignorance. They're quite happy to wax lyrically about literature, art etc. They'll happily relate every novel to obscure Russian novelists, or 'find' pretentious cryptic symbolism in something but trying to get them to do a decent piece on science or technology is impossible. It's all dumbed down, over simplified and obfuscated.
Some things are just inherently complex, you can not reduce them further; you can't make a complicated thing easy.
secrets in symmetry
21-Dec-11, 23:30
As interesting as Philosophy may be, this thread was inspired by ducati's post:
I still don't know who these "very eminent and renowned scientists" are. I saw a lot of scientists on the clips from the Discovery programme, but I didn't see anyone claim that "the probability of intelligent design is now seen as very high".
Oh' I did. But not that programme. :DSo...I assume you know of no eminent scientists claiming that "the probability of intelligent design is now seen as very high".
I can't think of any sane ones....
secrets in symmetry
21-Dec-11, 23:32
The media which is mostly full of liberal arts and humanities people handles science and technology so badly. It's as if they're proud in their ignorance. They're quite happy to wax lyrically about literature, art etc. They'll happily relate every novel to obscure Russian novelists, or 'find' pretentious cryptic symbolism in something but trying to get them to do a decent piece on science or technology is impossible. It's all dumbed down, over simplified and obfuscated.
Some things are just inherently complex, you can not reduce them further; you can't make a complicated thing easy.Whilst I agree with your general opinions, I thought the media didn't do too badly at the factual bits last week. Their silly giggling about people and things they didn't understand was pathetic though - although there were a few exceptions.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.