Creationism/Intelligent Design

Vompatti wrote: What exactly does the intelligent design theory say?

Edited by Sean Trane - January 25 2007 at 07:32

Anyone who says evolution is "just a theory" has no idea what the term "theory" means in science. The name "theory" is only given to thought constructs that are very well proven, although of course any contradictory finding or experiment might disprove it. But this will in case of a theory very likely not mean the whole theory has to be thrown away, it will only mean the theory will have to be improved a bit. Anything that is NOT well proven in science is called a "hypothesis". The 20th century only developped 2 major scientific theories: The theory of relativity (special and general, developped by Einstein) and the theory of quantum mechanics, developped by Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Dirac and again Einstein (Einstein received his nobel prize not for developping the theory of relativity but because of his contribution to the theory of quantum mechanics, the explanation for the so-called "photo-electric effect", which is the principle photo cells work by). So it is not for nothing that the theory of evolution is called a "theory". No serious scientist worth his salt doubts it. There may be new findings to the mechanisms of mutation and selection, but the basic principle is not in doubt at all. Those who propel the hypothesis of "Intelligent Design" cleverly make use of the different meanings of "theory" in science and in everyday language, but that will only impress a scientific layman.


Edited by BaldFriede - January 25 2007 at 08:32

Psychedelia wrote:   Majestic Mayhem, your argument that an explosion wont make a fully functioning airoplane is completely flawed as evolution is not a sudden process which quickly makes the desired result. It is more likable to a huge mountain that must be climbed which can only be taken slowly and in stages.

BaldFriede wrote: Anyone who says evolution is "just a theory" has no idea what the term "theory" means in science. The name "theory" is only given to thought constructs that are very well proven, although of course any contradictory finding or experiment might disprove it. But this will in case of a theory very likely not mean the whole theory has to be thrown away, it will only mean the theory will have to be improved a bit. Anything that is NOT well proven in science is called a "hypothesis". The 20th century only developped 2 major scientific theories: The theory of relativity (special and general, developped by Einstein) and the theory of quantum mechanics, developped by Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Dirac and again Einstein (Einstein received his nobel prize not for developping the theory of relativity but because of his contribution to the theory of quantum mechanics, the explanation for the so-called "photo-electric effect", which is the principle photo cells work by). So it is not for nothing that the theory of evolution is called a "theory". No serious scientist worth his salt doubts it. There may be new findings to the mechanisms of mutation and selection, but the basic principle is not in doubt at all. Those who propel the hypothesis of "Intelligent Design" cleverly make use of the different meanings of "theory" in science and in everyday language, but that will only impress a scientific layman.

    Wikipedia’s definition of theory states, “In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation…. In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.” Assuming that Darwin meant science, how is the Theory of Evolution capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind? Not to mention being tested through experiment. So what remains? conjecture, opinion, speculation – your choice.

The same applies to the Intelligent Design theory

Thank you IVNORD.

Psychedelia wrote: But your argument seems to propell on the fact of things we dont yet know. Like what? Tell me something that is an absolute when it comes to this.It is by no means certain that we will not find these things out in the future. And explosions can cause beautiful things, for example coral reefs which flourish in places where nuclear bombs have been tested. Hmmmnn... Nuclear bombs are not made to act as fertilizers. So your argument is way off my friend. I dont see how a theory can be based on a lack of knowledge rather than evidence to back something up. This seems to me anti-logic. I mean, look at yourself, myself and everyone else. Can you say that the beauty that you can see, the excellency of the human body just came out of nothing? Out of an explosion that happenned a  long long time ago? That alone is proof to me. We all know that anything, and I mean anything deteriorates with time. Sorry but  the equation VERY VERY BIG EXPLOSION + MATTER ( I don't even know where that matter came from, maybe SOMEBODY placed it there) + TIME wont add up for me. It can't produce the intellegence that we humans have, the beauty of nature and everything else.

Edited by Majestic_Mayhem - January 25 2007 at 09:08

Psychedelia wrote: But your argument seems to propell on the fact of things we dont yet know. It is by no means certain that we will not find these things out in the future. And explosions can cause beautiful things, for example coral reefs which flourish in places where nuclear bombs have been tested. I dont see how a theory can be based on a lack of knowledge rather than evidence to back something up. This seems to me anti-logic.

Is there a causal relation between the two events? So we can expect coral to be formed in North Korea, they did nuclear tests.
     

i agree with Sean Trane, there are many parts of the world which aren't at all beautiful and animals like digger wasps which paralyse caterpillars so there young can feed on live meat.

Why not believe that an entity, call it God or Goddess, created a situation that led to the big band, from which a huge self-organizing system slowly evolved? Isn't an entity that creates so complex a process that we, as part of the current state of it, can start thinking about it, much more powerful and creative than an entity that goes and builds the world as it is today out of nothing? I personally find this idea much more attractive. I am not opposed to creation per se, I am only opposed to creation as it is depicted in the bible. No scientist can explain what was before the big bang or what caused it; this is where all science currently ends, and most likely will end in the future too. As some scientists claim, nothing, not even time, existed before the big bang. As a concept this is very intruiging, but it is not fully understandable for any human brain, including the brains of the scientists. The big bang is a so-called singularity in time-space (as are black holes, by the way).
When it comes to matters of science, I highly recommend "Why Aren't Black Holes Black?" by Robert M. Hazen and Maxine Singer. It accurately describes the current frontiers of science, with chapters on all the currently unanswered questions.


Edited by BaldFriede - January 25 2007 at 10:30

Because we rely on language and reason, it is the level of the visible that we regard as reality. It appears to have an order, and is stable and predictable. Yet in actuality, it is elusive, temporary and ever changing. What we judge as permanent reality is only the surface appearance of an unfathomable force.

The Sorcerers' Crossing