[_ Old Earth _] Intelligent design meets its'maker

[reznwerks]

"Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for. It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's credibility."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weeki ... 4good.html

 

[nexuscrawler]

ID is failing to gain much support from the scientific community because it's simply not science. Science relies on physical evidence and the interpretation of data. ID is an idea that simply has not provided any meaningful scientific data. If ID presented itself as what it really is, a spiritual idea, maybe it would get a better reception. Trying to put ID in science class is roughly equavilaent to teaching Charles Dickens in Calculas

 

[Frost Giant]

Science = looking at facts and drawing a conclusion, ID = taking a conclusion and looking for facts to support it. They aren't compatible.

 

[ThinkerMan]

Science = looking at facts and drawing a conclusion, ID = taking a conclusion and looking for facts to support it. They aren't compatible.

I think the better way to say is...

ID=taking a conclusion and looking for the absence of facts that would otherwise contradict the conclusion

 

[Blazin Bones]

ID - Reality or not, where you place your faith is up to you. 8-) I'm with God.

 

[bibleberean]

ID - Reality or not, where you place your faith is up to you. 8-) I'm with God.

Amen...

The evidence that everything is designed by an intelligent Creator is too much to ingore.

Every program I watch on television from the evolutionist perspective is filled with the words "design", "creation" "purpose" etc.

All we see was made by God and messed up by sin.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

 

[NRoof]

Science = looking at facts and drawing a conclusion, ID = taking a conclusion and looking for facts to support it. They aren't compatible.

I generally don't get involved with this topic as I am by no means an expert but this peaked my interest.

Lets go right to the beginning and see if your quote holds up.

The scientific community largely holds to the big bang theory as to where it all began. They will freely admit that there are holes in the theory but it's the best explanation going.

So let’s look at this from a scientific point of view specifically using a mathematical probability approach.
We will start with the assumption that all materials needed to create the universe already exists and are just floating around in space but there are no cohesive bodies (planets, suns, ect...) around yet.

Question 1:
What is the probability that a force required to create the universe could happen buy chance?

Question 2:
What is the probability that the above force could create a sun and multiple planets?

Question 3:
What is the probability that one of those planets would have just the right mass to enable it to maintain a certain distance from the sun which in turn would enable it to support life at some future time?

Question 4:
What is the probability that a single cell could be created by chance that had enough genetic information that would enable it to evolve into all the forms of life that are now present on the earth?

This can go on and on and as stated I am certainly not a specialist in this and to be honest I can’t answer the above questions beyond saying the probability of this happening would be so small as to be non-existent.

So now back to the original quote:
Is the big bang science or not? There are no solid facts to back up the theory and thus make a conclusion from.
So if there are no facts then the conclusion must have come first.

For me it takes less faith to believe that God created the universe as opposed to it happening by chance.

 

[Wertbag]

Question 1:
What is the probability that a force required to create the universe could happen buy chance?

It doesn't have to happen by chance, for the big bang theory we are talking about critical mass, gravitational forces, magnetism and other laws of nature. If the universe was in the configuration believed then the outcome is what we expect to see.

Question 2:
What is the probability that the above force could create a sun and multiple planets?

Guaranteed based on those same natural laws.

Question 3:
What is the probability that one of those planets would have just the right mass to enable it to maintain a certain distance from the sun which in turn would enable it to support life at some future time?

With the billions upon billions of stars, with many planetiods per star, it would be truely amazing if we didn't find hundreds of life sustaining planets.

Question 4:
What is the probability that a single cell could be created by chance that had enough genetic information that would enable it to evolve into all the forms of life that are now present on the earth?

Add parallel attempts continuously for long periods of time, and only require one of the billions of possible times to succeed.

Is the big bang science or not? There are no solid facts to back up the theory and thus make a conclusion from.

Yes it is, there are facts that can be examined, such as the frequency of light, the movement of the universe, radiation levels, and our own exploration. Of course our own ability to leave earth has only happened in the last 40 years, and we still do not know how to get our speeds up high enough to travel to the stars we can see. This doesn't mean we never will, it simply means this part of science still has alot of discovery still to do.

 

[reznwerks]

chance

Science = looking at facts and drawing a conclusion, ID = taking a conclusion and looking for facts to support it. They aren't compatible.

I generally don't get involved with this topic as I am by no means an expert but this peaked my interest.

Lets go right to the beginning and see if your quote holds up.

The scientific community largely holds to the big bang theory as to where it all began. They will freely admit that there are holes in the theory but it's the best explanation going.

So let’s look at this from a scientific point of view specifically using a mathematical probability approach.
We will start with the assumption that all materials needed to create the universe already exists and are just floating around in space but there are no cohesive bodies (planets, suns, ect...) around yet.

Question 1:
What is the probability that a force required to create the universe could happen buy chance?
I guess you are referring to God?

Question 2:
What is the probability that the above force could create a sun and multiple planets?
I guess you are still referring to a God?

Question 3:
What is the probability that one of those planets would have just the right mass to enable it to maintain a certain distance from the sun which in turn would enable it to support life at some future time?
Are you still referring to a supernatural being able to accomplish this?

Question 4:
What is the probability that a single cell could be created by chance that had enough genetic information that would enable it to evolve into all the forms of life that are now present on the earth?
Are you still referring to God doing this.

This can go on and on and as stated I am certainly not a specialist in this and to be honest I can’t answer the above questions beyond saying the probability of this happening would be so small as to be non-existent.
I see, you are a mathematician. Have you done the odds on a supernatural being who is able to create himself perfect first and then produce all the matter in the universe out of nothing? How about the odds of this special being who created the universe that is million and millions of light years across (thats a lot of zeros) would focus in on one tiny planet that is probably smaller than the head of a pin in the ocean.

So now back to the original quote:
Is the big bang science or not? There are no solid facts to back up the theory and thus make a conclusion from.
Yes there is as science has observed the out universe expanding. What other conclusion do you draw when you can see it. If you drop a stone in the water the waves radiate outward. If you blow up a firecracker the force goes out in all directions. Sorry but there is ample reason to draw the conclusion. You may have skipped your science class but that doesn't change anything.
So if there are no facts then the conclusion must have come first.

For me it takes less faith to believe that God created the universe as opposed to it happening by chance.
I don't think you have really thought it through. After all I know I am here , I can see what is around me. However I nor anyone else has seen God and he still can't be found. Not having answers to questions does not mean God did it. Some answers may never be found and again this does not mean a God exists.

 

[pfilmtech]

Most of this has little to nothing to do with evolution.

 

[bibleberean]

Most of this has little to nothing to do with evolution.

That is because the topic is not just about evolution but "Intelligent Design".

 

[pfilmtech]

I tihnk we could use a real definition of Intelligent Design then. I've heard two but the line between them seems to be fuzzy

A belief that mankind was guided through evolutionary processes by supernatural forces.

This is the one that people are trying to put into science classrooms despite the fact that it has no scientific evidence to back it up except to point out imperfections of evolutionary theory.

or

Belief that God created man as he is today all at once.

This is creationism with another name.

 

[bibleberean]

I tihnk we could use a real definition of Intelligent Design then. I've heard two but the line between them seems to be fuzzy

A belief that mankind was guided through evolutionary processes by supernatural forces.

This is the one that people are trying to put into science classrooms despite the fact that it has no scientific evidence to back it up except to point out imperfections of evolutionary theory.

or

Belief that God created man as he is today all at once.

This is creationism with another name.

Intelligent design is creationism.

The term "intelligent design" could mean a whole slew of things.

Some people use the term to say that God used a evolutionary process to
create man.

The bible does not teach that.

I believe that everything that is made was created by God as is given in the Genesis account and elsewhere in the scriptures.

All living things are designed. That is self evident.

Romans 1:19-20 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

[pfilmtech]

I fial to see how any of those has bussiness being in a science classroom

 

[Khristeeanos]

That is not surprising coming from such a liberally slanted paper. :roll:

 

[Frost Giant]

When in doubt, blame liberals. They are, after all, the source of the world's problems. Like AIDS. AIDS isn't a disease, it's a poison distibuted by liberals.

 

[Heidi]

When in doubt, blame liberals. They are, after all, the source of the world's problems. Like AIDS. AIDS isn't a disease, it's a poison distibuted by liberals.

Liberals call themselves "free thinkers" (who, of course are not open-minded enough to think that God can exist), which is why they use the Latin word "liber" which means free. So since they rebel against God and believe that fallible human reasoning is more accurate (which is an oxymoron, by the way), they always oppose anything that God endorses. Again, if you always want to be right then agree with God. But if one is audacious enough to think he knows better than God, then he will always be wrong.

And Christians blame the sexual sin of lust for AIDS, but liberals do not. They see nothing wrong with licentious sex (even though std's are staring them in the face),and want to spend billions of dollars to find a cure for AIDS instead of dealing with what causes it. That's like using the brake and the accelerator at the same time. :wink:

 

[pfilmtech]

When in doubt, blame liberals. They are, after all, the source of the world's problems. Like AIDS. AIDS isn't a disease, it's a poison distibuted by liberals.

Liberals call themselves "free thinkers" (who, of course are not open-minded enough to think that God can exist), which is why they use the Latin word "liber" which means free. So since they rebel against God and believe that fallible human reasoning is more accurate (which is an oxymoron, by the way), they always oppose anything that God endorses. Again, if you always want to be right then agree with God. But if one is audacious enough to think he knows better than God, then he will always be wrong.

And Christians blame the sexual sin of lust for AIDS, but liberals do not. They see nothing wrong with licentious sex (even though std's are staring them in the face),and want to spend billions of dollars to find a cure for AIDS instead of dealing with what causes it. That's like using the brake and the accelerator at the same time. :wink:

If God hadn't wanted people to have free will he would have created us as some kind of God worshipping robots.

 

[NRoof]

Question 1:
What is the probability that a force required to create the universe could happen buy chance?

It doesn't have to happen by chance...

Sorry it took so long to reply to this but I have been very busy.

Wertbag,
While I did read the rest of you post this is the one part that really caught my attention. As far as my limited mind works there are only 2 possibilities.
1) The universe and all things in it were created by chance or accident.
2) All things were created with a plan - intelligent design

Again if we use math and someone had the time and inclination I would be willing to bet (figuratively as I don't gamble) that the probability of all the complexities of the universe and life happening by chance would be next to nothing.

 

[cubedbee]

Again if we use math and someone had the time and inclination I would be willing to bet (figuratively as I don't gamble) that the probability of all the complexities of the universe and life happening by chance would be next to nothing.

This is an unknowable question. The only we could know this probability is to observe many universes forming by chance and see how many of them have life. We have no idea, nor can we ever, how or from what the universe formed. For all we know, the only initial conditions that will allow for the formation of a stable universe will also inevitably lead to the development of intelligent life. Also, to know the probabilities of a universe with life forming, we would have to know how frequently universes form. For all we know, they could be constantly forming, there could be a billion new ones born every billionth of a second, and so even though life is extremely improbable, there are just enough universes that exist that even the improbable ones happen.

Math cannot be used to answer the philisophical question of the universe's origin. It is an inadequate tool.