Jump to content

Ben Stein, the Michael Moore of intelligent design?


flaps15

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 534
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I guess you missed my point. Evolution may NOT be responsible for the presence of Humans on planet Earth. We might be the result of tampering, either by a God or someone else.

 

One can be a Christian, believe that Earth is several billion years old and that evolution played a role in her ecological diversity. The uniqueness of man is his intellect and soul not his physical being.

 

The universe has a physical nature that we can sense and this is what our science has been somewhat successful in describing. What basis is there to reject the possibility that there is a spiritual nature to the universe that we can not sense with an experiment in the lab?

 

You can not escape the fact it is human nature to want to believe in a higher being. Atheists are in the minority. I am curious why natural selection would instill spirituality in our thought process. The laws of natural selection only care about traits that enhance survivability. How does believing in a God fit that pattern.

 

The fact that it is in our nature to seek a God tends to support the existence of one. Nature has no God ax to grind and it is hard to see why evolution would evolve minds interested in much, other than where the next meal is coming from.

Interesting point...What compels us to waste precious time and energy thinking about this stuff and posting on this thread? It serves no evolutionary imperative. Or does it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess you missed my point. Evolution may NOT be responsible for the presence of Humans on planet Earth. We might be the result of tampering, either by a God or someone else.

 

One can be a Christian, believe that Earth is several billion years old and that evolution played a role in her ecological diversity. The uniqueness of man is his intellect and soul not his physical being.

 

The universe has a physical nature that we can sense and this is what our science has been somewhat successful in describing. What basis is there to reject the possibility that there is a spiritual nature to the universe that we can not sense with an experiment in the lab?

 

You can not escape the fact it is human nature to want to believe in a higher being. Atheists are in the minority. I am curious why natural selection would instill spirituality in our thought process. The laws of natural selection only care about traits that enhance survivability. How does believing in a God fit that pattern.

 

The fact that it is in our nature to seek a God tends to support the existence of one. Nature has no God ax to grind and it is hard to see why evolution would evolve minds interested in much, other than where the next meal is coming from.

 

Personally, I would call this "higher being" and the ID movement; Fear of the unknowns evolutionary security blanket. I think it's hard for most people to admit they don't have all the answers, that their time here is finite and there is nothing else past being worm food. The everlasting life thing is a way to cope and still be able to pay your car payment every month. As far as atheist's being in the minority, well the jury is still out on that one because of the overbearing religious thought in this country is still keeping people "in the closet" so to speak, for fear of persecution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess you missed my point. Evolution may NOT be responsible for the presence of Humans on planet Earth. We might be the result of tampering, either by a God or someone else.

 

One can be a Christian, believe that Earth is several billion years old and that evolution played a role in her ecological diversity. The uniqueness of man is his intellect and soul not his physical being.

 

The universe has a physical nature that we can sense and this is what our science has been somewhat successful in describing. What basis is there to reject the possibility that there is a spiritual nature to the universe that we can not sense with an experiment in the lab?

 

You can not escape the fact it is human nature to want to believe in a higher being. Atheists are in the minority. I am curious why natural selection would instill spirituality in our thought process. The laws of natural selection only care about traits that enhance survivability. How does believing in a God fit that pattern.

 

The fact that it is in our nature to seek a God tends to support the existence of one. Nature has no God ax to grind and it is hard to see why evolution would evolve minds interested in much, other than where the next meal is coming from.

Don't confuse atheism and aspirituality.

 

Spirituality (and maybe belief in god(s)) almost certainly have some biological basis. It could be a by-product of consciousness or serve an important role in keeping social groups together. On the other hand, rage and undesirable forms of sexuality also have their roots in genetically determined processes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't confuse atheism and aspirituality.

 

Spirituality (and maybe belief in god(s)) almost certainly have some biological basis. It could be a by-product of consciousness or serve an important role in keeping social groups together. On the other hand, rage and undesirable forms of sexuality also have their roots in genetically determined processes.

Maybe our bodies are nothing more than the physical interface between the spiritual and the physical universes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I would call this "higher being" and the ID movement; Fear of the unknowns evolutionary security blanket. I think it's hard for most people to admit they don't have all the answers, that their time here is finite and there is nothing else past being worm food. The everlasting life thing is a way to cope and still be able to pay your car payment every month. As far as atheist's being in the minority, well the jury is still out on that one because of the overbearing religious thought in this country is still keeping people "in the closet" so to speak, for fear of persecution.

 

This appears to be an exclusively human trait. Dogs have even fewer answers than we do yet I don't think they have religion.

 

I would turn your assumption upside down. We are not spiritual due to a paucity of answers, rather it is a wealth of questions that drives us to be spiritual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This appears to be an exclusively human trait. Dogs have even fewer answers than we do yet I don't think they have religion.

 

I would turn your assumption upside down. We are not spiritual due to a paucity of answers, rather it is a wealth of questions that drives us to be spiritual.

 

Please try not to include the whole of the human race when you make your assumptions. It invalidates your premise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the issues we have not addressed here is that in the previous postings, there seems to be a tendency to anthropomorphise the earth. To treat it as a living being. That is, that there would be an intent for an earthquake for instance. A God of the earthquake may be invented, but it stood for the earthquake itself. We have advanced from pantheism where it was the God of the earthquake, to the God of all Earthquakes (Greek concept) to monotheism where one God controls the earthquake. The problem is the term "controls" the earthquake. I see this approach as being part of ID and think it is where things have gone wrong for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the issues we have not addressed here is that in the previous postings, there seems to be a tendency to anthropomorphise the earth. To treat it as a living being. That is, that there would be an intent for an earthquake for instance. A God of the earthquake may be invented, but it stood for the earthquake itself. We have advanced from pantheism where it was the God of the earthquake, to the God of all Earthquakes (Greek concept) to monotheism where one God controls the earthquake. The problem is the term "controls" the earthquake. I see this approach as being part of ID and think it is where things have gone wrong for them.

Aha, but you cannot prove that is NOT the case...therefore it must be! Or something like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How arrogant of you to assume you qualify as human.

Seems to be the consensus of most who know me.

 

Edit: what's wrong with pantheism? (post #316) makes way more sense to me. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting point...What compels us to waste precious time and energy thinking about this stuff and posting on this thread? It serves no evolutionary imperative. Or does it?

 

Turn it around - why develop this capacity to "believe" all sorts of stuff with no basis? Certainly Dawkins makes a credible attempt at explainging it in "The God Delusion" which I will not repeat here.

 

But maybe it was for many years an evolutionary advantage not to really bother to think stuff out to much and focus on other things like finding food, shelter and avoinding getting snarfed by things with big teeth. So you wrote off the confusing stuff as supernatural and moved on to the practical. Otherwise you'd get wrapped around the axle trying to figure out what you don't know instead of trying to get by with what you do.

 

Who knows, it's an interesting question.

 

You can not escape the fact it is human nature to want to believe in a higher being.

 

 

No, it's not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I would call this "higher being" and the ID movement; Fear of the unknowns evolutionary security blanket. I think it's hard for most people to admit they don't have all the answers, that their time here is finite and there is nothing else past being worm food. The everlasting life thing is a way to cope and still be able to pay your car payment every month. As far as atheist's being in the minority, well the jury is still out on that one because of the overbearing religious thought in this country is still keeping people "in the closet" so to speak, for fear of persecution.

wow. i really disagree with you here. and i know i said i wasn't going to reply in this thread until it was back on track discussing the movie but i just couldn't help myself!

i think it's pretty easy for most people to admit they don't have all the answers. only the extremist on both the religious and atheist sides seem to believe they have all the answers.

and why would anyone admit that their time here is finite and that there is nothing past becoming worm food? you don't know this to be true any more than someone who believes that there is something knows that to be true. it's just your belief...just as something more is their's.

if you don't believe in everlasting life it is kind of presumptuous for you to claim knowledge on the subject, is it not? what do you know of other's beliefs in everlasting life unless they have told you of it?...i seriously doubt anyone who believes in everlasting life would have told you it was to keep going on making car payments.

i think atheist are indeed in the minority. were they not they would have no fear of prosecution. some of them certainly don't even with your claim of an overbearing religiosity. personally, it seems to me that the people who admit they don't have all the answers are in the majority, that would be the people who are not religious extremists or atheist extremists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't confuse atheism and aspirituality.

 

Spirituality (and maybe belief in god(s)) almost certainly have some biological basis. It could be a by-product of consciousness or serve an important role in keeping social groups together. On the other hand, rage and undesirable forms of sexuality also have their roots in genetically determined processes.

on the same note, i do not think that spirituality should be confused with religiosity. they are a far cry from the same thing and while someone may have both, they could have one or the other independently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dualism has its place, but it ain't empirical so I can't discuss it at work.

what do you mean by this?

edit to clarify...why would you not be able to discuss something at work unless it is empirical?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Please try not to include the whole of the human race when you make your assumptions. It invalidates your premise.

as it does when applied by many people here including, but not exclusively, the atheism crowd...a concept i can't seem to get any of them to understand here. when people here speak in absolute terms (all, none, every, we, etc) it does indeed invalidate their argument. it's done when speaking of religion or lack there of, politics, race relations and on and on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the issues we have not addressed here is that in the previous postings, there seems to be a tendency to anthropomorphise the earth. To treat it as a living being. That is, that there would be an intent for an earthquake for instance. A God of the earthquake may be invented, but it stood for the earthquake itself. We have advanced from pantheism where it was the God of the earthquake, to the God of all Earthquakes (Greek concept) to monotheism where one God controls the earthquake. The problem is the term "controls" the earthquake. I see this approach as being part of ID and think it is where things have gone wrong for them.

i still think you may be lumping all of i.d. into creationisms. i get the impression it is more diverse than that, especially after watching that movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aha, but you cannot prove that is NOT the case...therefore it must be! Or something like that.

why can it not be:

it has not been proven that either is the case...therefore either or neither may be true. or something like that.

 

i don't think god controlling earthquakes really fits into the premise as it is known how earthquakes occur these days nor do i think any scientist who is studying i.d. would make the claim that god creates earthquakes (but i could be wrong).

Link to post
Share on other sites
what do you mean by this?

edit to clarify...why would you not be able to discuss something at work unless it is empirical?

Oh, just a weak attempt at humor. My main job is to figure out how the human brain works, so dualism (seeing the material and the spiritual nature of man as separate) has to be saved for a more philosophical context.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, just a weak attempt at humor. My main job is to figure out how the human brain works, so dualism (seeing the material and the spiritual nature of man as separate) has to be saved for a more philosophical context.

just trying to make sure you are not saying that you are not allowed to discuss it at work as that would support the entire premise of the movie that this thread was started to discuss.

 

edit to add: well, maybe not the entire premise but certainly the greater portion of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
just trying to make sure you are not saying that you are not allowed to discuss it at work as that would support the entire premise of the movie that this thread was started to discuss.

Not at all. I think and say exactly what I want. As I wrote, I believe spirituality has a biological basis and I we must invoke spiritual concepts at times to discuss how we feel. In that sense, spiritual things are real, but that doesn't mean we have to entertain non-empirical explanations for how we got here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not at all. I think and say exactly what I want. As I wrote, I believe spirituality has a biological basis and I we must invoke spiritual concepts at times to discuss how we feel. In that sense, spiritual things are real, but that doesn't mean we have to entertain non-empirical explanations for how we got here.

Care to fill us in on the empirical explanations for how we got here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
i still think you may be lumping all of i.d. into creationisms. i get the impression it is more diverse than that, especially after watching that movie.

 

I see your point, however we return to my original premise, the Design must be instituted either at the beginning of time (rocket approach) or continually or intermittently. One of the issues with the rocket approach is the introduction of randomness, and this is an observed process which we can quantify, as time goes on. The introduction of a "guiding hand" either intermittently or continually makes it difficult not to label this "guiding hand" as a God. If we try an intermittent approach through different Geneses such as first amino acid (life) or tweeking the DNA (Garden of Eden?) we still come back to the bias of existence to stray from the guiding hand. It is the method of bringing about the design that the movie does not answer for me. Is evolution just the method of finding randomness in an evolved being? I am thinking of the finch beaks of Darwin. Do they need to be guided back to the true path and how would this be done? I find it difficult to separate creationism and ID on a nuts and bolts, how do you do it basis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Care to fill us in on the empirical explanations for how we got here?

There are no empirical end to end explanations, only chunks of mechanism and tantalizing gaps. Mine was a general statement on explanations that invoke spiritual forces, creators, etc. because our minds tend in that direction. We've been over this ad nauseam and I don't have anything new or more intelligent to say on the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are no empirical end to end explanations, only chunks of mechanism and tantalizing gaps. Mine was a general statement on explanations that invoke spiritual forces, creators, etc. because our minds tend in that direction. We've been over this ad nauseam and I don't have anything new or more intelligent to say on the subject.

Many of the minds weighing in here tend in the direction of a "natural" explanation. They also do it without the benifit of empirical evidence. You're right in that we have beaten it to death and I don't have anything more intelligent to add either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Many of the minds weighing in here tend in the direction of a "natural" explanation. They also do it without the benifit of empirical evidence. You're right in that we have beaten it to death and I don't have anything more intelligent to add either.

I hear you and one can certainly be right for the wrong reasons or no reason at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm...a hint of irony.

 

I was standing in line, hadn't even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested.... They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn't notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn't recognize him. My guest was …

 

Richard Dawkins.

:huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few interesting and related links for those who are so inclined.

 

Intelligent Design Theory is your Daddy's Creationism Part I

Intelligent Design Theory is your Daddy's Creationism Part II

 

I understand that this does not necessarily apply to the statements of all PA ID supporters, but still there is some interesting insights into the motivations behind much of the the support for "modern" ID.

 

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites
wow. i really disagree with you here. and i know i said i wasn't going to reply in this thread until it was back on track discussing the movie but i just couldn't help myself!

i think it's pretty easy for most people to admit they don't have all the answers. only the extremist on both the religious and atheist sides seem to believe they have all the answers.

and why would anyone admit that their time here is finite and that there is nothing past becoming worm food? you don't know this to be true any more than someone who believes that there is something knows that to be true. it's just your belief...just as something more is their's.

if you don't believe in everlasting life it is kind of presumptuous for you to claim knowledge on the subject, is it not? what do you know of other's beliefs in everlasting life unless they have told you of it?...i seriously doubt anyone who believes in everlasting life would have told you it was to keep going on making car payments.

i think atheist are indeed in the minority. were they not they would have no fear of prosecution. some of them certainly don't even with your claim of an overbearing religiosity. personally, it seems to me that the people who admit they don't have all the answers are in the majority, that would be the people who are not religious extremists or atheist extremists.

Elle, you can disagree with me all you care to. I have no problem with that, I even welcome it because I learn things from others opinions, but my observations are based on my life experiences. Everyone wants to believe that there is more to life than the here and now and while this has nothing to do with ID, I was responding to another poster's statement. It's my opinion, I'm not trying to jam it down someones throat or teach it in high school science class. The ID people are. You can break it down anyway you like but it's not science, it's creationism repackaged. Like anything else religious it doesn't belong in public schools, period. If you don't believe that organized religion is trying to change things in this country then you are naive. I'm not going into examples straight off but you should read Dershowitz's "Blasphemy" to start and maybe tune into the Rev. Barry Lynn's website here then tell me I'm jousting with windmills.

Once again, my experiences, my opinions, believe what you like. Oh, and I will get back to you after I see the movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An example of the continual "guiding hand" can be seen in commercial salmon fishing farms. Isolated from natural processes, a salmon fishing farm shows a high degree of mutation in the fish, 3 eyes, mishapen bodys, that sort of thing. In nature, these fish do not survive to the point they are put in a can. The IDers charactrize the "guiding hand" that kills all the mutated fish and allows the standard ones to live as Intelligent Design. This effect is only seen in living creatures. There is no rejection back to randomness of "bad rocks". Therefore, ID is not a universal process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"We believe the pursuit of truth is the highest calling of humanity. We are a collection of people who have wandered many paths, but all discovered that same truth. We are passionate about sparking authentic life journeys and sharing compelling content with skeptics, seekers, believers, and a hurting world.

 

We seek to be non-threatening, practical, and informative, using the technology of the Internet to pose tough questions and seek candid answers about God, Creation, Life, Humanity, Thought, History, and Truth.

 

Many people refer to us as “Christians,” but we consider ourselves followers of Jesus. Like Jesus, we reject many of the issues found in “organized religion” (man-made attempts to reach God through rules and rituals). Actually, we believe religion has kept more people from the truth than anything in history. Although we reject man-made religion, we consider the personal pursuit of God as tantamount in each of our personal life journeys."

 

Well at least they're not biased......

Link to post
Share on other sites
I see your point, however we return to my original premise, the Design must be instituted either at the beginning of time (rocket approach) or continually or intermittently. One of the issues with the rocket approach is the introduction of randomness, and this is an observed process which we can quantify, as time goes on. The introduction of a "guiding hand" either intermittently or continually makes it difficult not to label this "guiding hand" as a God. If we try an intermittent approach through different Geneses such as first amino acid (life) or tweeking the DNA (Garden of Eden?) we still come back to the bias of existence to stray from the guiding hand. It is the method of bringing about the design that the movie does not answer for me. Is evolution just the method of finding randomness in an evolved being? I am thinking of the finch beaks of Darwin. Do they need to be guided back to the true path and how would this be done? I find it difficult to separate creationism and ID on a nuts and bolts, how do you do it basis.

so you did see the movie? i did not find it answered any question either way and honestly i didn't get the impression that answering the questions was the point of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A few interesting and related links for those who are so inclined.

 

Intelligent Design Theory is your Daddy's Creationism Part I

Intelligent Design Theory is your Daddy's Creationism Part II

 

I understand that this does not necessarily apply to the statements of all PA ID supporters, but still there is some interesting insights into the motivations behind much of the the support for "modern" ID.

 

NS

who exactly are the "pa id supporters"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
who exactly are the "pa id supporters"?

 

They would be those who argue in PA in support of ID. What are you getting at? I'm not trying to label anyone, just posting relevant information to the discussion. If one believes that 1) ID is a topic of science and/or 2) believe that ID is unrelated to religion, one might want to read this, or not if one doesn't want a reasoned challenge to one's views.

NS

 

Edited for clarity

Link to post
Share on other sites
Elle, you can disagree with me all you care to. I have no problem with that, I even welcome it because I learn things from others opinions, but my observations are based on my life experiences. Everyone wants to believe that there is more to life than the here and now and while this has nothing to do with ID, I was responding to another poster's statement. It's my opinion, I'm not trying to jam it down someones throat or teach it in high school science class. The ID people are. You can break it down anyway you like but it's not science, it's creationism repackaged. Like anything else religious it doesn't belong in public schools, period. If you don't believe that organized religion is trying to change things in this country then you are naive. I'm not going into examples straight off but you should read Dershowitz's "Blasphemy" to start and maybe tune into the Rev. Barry Lynn's website here then tell me I'm jousting with windmills.

Once again, my experiences, my opinions, believe what you like. Oh, and I will get back to you after I see the movie.

yes, i am aware that i can disagree with you all i care to. if it makes you feel better to actually tell me i can, fine.

i do not believe that everyone wants to believe that there is something more. what's more is that i do not believe that everyone needs to believe there is something more.

i am in complete agreement that creationism does not belong in public schools..nor does religion. it should not be on money, it should not be in the court room, it should not be in the white house, i don't want anybody's god in my government.

i did not say organized religion is not trying to change things in this country, and i am not sure where you got that i said that. what i do believe is that organized religion is trying to stifle change. BUT i do not believe that people like me are being prosecuted by the "overbearing religious thought in this country". that's chicken shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They would be those who argue in PA in support of ID. What are you getting at? I'm not trying to label anyone, just posting relevant information to the discussion. If one believes that 1) ID is a topic of science and/or 2) believe that ID is unrelated to religion, one might want to read this, or not if one doesn't want a reasoned challenge to one's views.

NS

 

Edited for clarity

i am trying to figure out who you think is supporting i.d....not who is saying that people should be allowed to ask question about where life began, propose theories and investigate them in an attempt to either prove or disprove them, but who you think is actually saying they believe that "god" created the universe and everything in it. it wasn't a difficult question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
i am trying to figure out who you think is supporting i.d....not who is saying that people should be allowed to ask question about where life began, propose theories and investigate them in an attempt to either prove or disprove them, but who you think is actually saying they believe that "god" created the universe and everything in it. it wasn't a difficult question.

 

I agree with you that there is a difference between "[asking] the question about where life began, propose theories and investigate them in an attempt to either prove or disprove them" and supporting the agenda of a religiously based hypothesis. Again, the purpose of my post is to facilitate an education about what is the basis of the hypothesis of "modern" ID.

 

As to who exactly is in the camp of the latter rather than the former, it is irrelevant to the purpose of my post. I know what your position was at the time of your PM. You stated your position very clearly. Beyond that, I'm not going to go back through and reread the entire thread to find evidence of and map out who supports what and and what time, and where they progressed from there.

 

I have not seen the movie, and based on the groups that invested in it, I will not pay to see the movie and provide them with a profit, just as I would not donate money to them. So if based on your viewing of the movie, you believe that there is a scientific basis of ID that can stand up to the peer review process, but is being quashed by the collective worldwide conspiracy that is "SCIENCE", and have supporting evidence for this other than that which has already been debunked in this thread, then I cannot address it. I may or may not have already seen that evidence, I don't know.

 

I have researched what "evidence" of this conspiracy that I have found in the movie trailers and websites and downloadable publications, and have posted the fruits of my research to this thread.

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a quantuum level, an electron is either a particle or a wave, depending on how you want to look at it. It cannot be both. This is why we talk of Shroedinger's Cat. It cannot be half dead, even when looked at probabalistically. We can very quickly go to reality being what you want it to be. There are a few stops along the way, such as living up to Newtonian Laws (bigger or more of), but the next step is you being your own God. Makes a good argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On a quantuum level, an electron is either a particle or a wave, depending on how you want to look at it. It cannot be both. This is why we talk of Shroedinger's Cat. It cannot be half dead, even when looked at probabalistically. We can very quickly go to reality being what you want it to be. There are a few stops along the way, such as living up to Newtonian Laws (bigger or more of), but the next step is you being your own God. Makes a good argument.

 

 

This argument was made by the makers of the movie, "What the Bleep Do We Know?", the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. One thing this neglects is that it extrapolates the theory in the "few stops along the way" from the micro of quantum theory to the macro. Quantum theory was derived because our laws governing the macro did not apply to the micro. One can't extrapolate beyond the bounds of relevance.

NS

 

Edit: Just reread your statement, is this what you are saying about living up to Newton's Laws?

Link to post
Share on other sites
This argument was made by the makers of the movie, "What the Bleep Do We Know?", the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. One thing this neglects is that it extrapolates the theory in the "few stops along the way" from the micro of quantum theory to the macro. Quantum theory was derived because our laws governing the macro did not apply to the micro. One can't extrapolate beyond the bounds of relevance.

NS

 

Edit: Just reread your statement, is this what you are saying about living up to Newton's Laws?

 

 

To cut to the chase on this one, it is impossible to define ID or Creationism beyond the big bang unless you are talking of the organic world. Any attempt to design something gets taken appart as the next unit of time brings about more randomness. It is only in an organic context that ID or constant hand creationism can exist. God in the context of the Big Bang is like a lion who insemenates a lioness and then can walk away.

 

We have to be careful about creating metaphors between the organic and non-organic worlds. The laws that work in one cannot always be used in the other. That being said, Mendl's great breakthrough in genetics was to apply a particle (quantuum) approach to what was looked at as a continuum (Newtonian). The yellow and the red peas do not bring about orange peas. They bring about the equal probablity of yellow and red peas. He was trained as a physicist and was immersed in particle theory upon entering the monastery.

 

As far as a world determined by DNA as an agency of ID, the DNA can set up the structure, but cannot determine the final product. The amino acid structure is set by the DNA, but it can fold in one of 12 ways depending on its environment. A good example is in the creation of synthetic insulin, which is how it is done today. The Lilly company isolated the human insulin chain quite early, but the way they make it just did not work. It was only when then created a process that set up the right environment that the amino acids folded in the correct way and artificial insulin was created.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course a Liberal might be inclined to think of this as spreading an infection to otherwise perfectly good planets.

 

Well, then I guess I'm a liberal. Humans have not been kind to this planet.

 

The fact that it is in our nature to seek a God tends to support the existence of one. Nature has no God ax to grind and it is hard to see why evolution would evolve minds interested in much, other than where the next meal is coming from.

 

duuude.... that's weak. My daughter seeks to believe in unicorns therefore they exist. I seek to believe in Earl the wind god, therefore he exist.

 

This appears to be an exclusively human trait. Dogs have even fewer answers than we do yet I don't think they have religion.

 

How do you know dog's don't have religion? And if dogs don't why should the human animal insist on having religion? Just to answer questions that our evolved intelligence comes up with? Using your logic then: without intellect, we need no religion. But once we evolved to think, we need religion. So, who designed the universe again?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop this debate. You are all silly in the eyes of the creator.

 

FROM THE GOSPEL

of His Holy Noodliness

 

The Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts"

  1. I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject.
  2. I'd really rather you didn't use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don't require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.
  3. I'd really rather you didn't judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, Okay? Oh, and get this into your thick heads: woman = person. man = person. Samey = Samey. One is not better than the other, unless we're talking about fashion and I'm sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia.
  4. I'd really rather you didn't indulge in conduct that offends yourself, or your willing, consenting partner of legal age AND mental maturity. As for anyone who might object, I think the expression is go fuck yourself, unless they find that offensive in which case they can turn off the TV for once and go for a walk for a change.
  5. I'd really rather you didn't challenge the bigoted, misogynistic, hateful ideas of others on an empty stomach. Eat, then go after the bitches.
  6. I'd really rather you didn't build multi million-dollar synagogues/churches/temples/mosques/shrines to my noodly goodness when the money could be better spent (take your pick):
    • Ending poverty
    • Curing diseases
    • Living in peace, loving with passion, and lowering the cost of cable
      I might be a complex-carbohydrate omniscient being, but I enjoy the simple things in life. I ought to know. I AM the creator.

[*]I'd really rather you didn't go around telling people I talk to you. You're not that interesting. Get over yourself. And I told you to love your fellow man, can't you take a hint?

[*]I'd really rather you didn't do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you are into, um, stuff that uses a lot of leather/lubricant/vaseline. If the other person is into it, however (pursuant to #4), then have at it, take pictures, and for the love of Mike, wear a CONDOM! Honestly, it's a piece of rubber. If I didn't want it to feel good when you did it I would have added spikes, or something.

DON'T question the TRUTH. It only makes you look like a... like a... well, like a Ben Stein or a GWBush or something.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel_of...aghetti_Monster

 

http://venganza.org/

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, then I guess I'm a liberal. Humans have not been kind to this planet. Yeah the world would be perfect without man. Spoken like a true self loathing liberal.

 

 

duuude.... that's weak. My daughter seeks to believe in unicorns therefore they exist. I seek to believe in Earl the wind god, therefore he exist.

 

 

 

How do you know dog's don't have religion? And if dogs don't why should the human animal insist on having religion? Just to answer questions that our evolved intelligence comes up with? Using your logic then: without intellect, we need no religion. But once we evolved to think, we need religion. So, who designed the universe again?

 

How do you know you exist or better yet, how do you know the physical existence your senses perceive is real? Given the correct drugs I can make you hallucinate all sorts of realities. Maybe you are merely the dreams of some sort of cosmic computer. In your case maybe you prefer the term nightmare.

 

I suspect without any evidence that you tentatively subscribe to the "I think, therefore I am" school. You trust you exist and the physical world is indeed how you perceive it to be. In other words you have "Faith" in your reality.

 

A central theme of religion is the concept of faith. God or not, it appears to be the core lesson the universe wants us to learn.

 

While science has rendered, silly, specific superstitions of this religion or that. i.e. the Earth is the center of the solar system. I'm not aware of any experimental evidence that God's existence is impossible.

 

BJ 's view and can I assume your's as well is that everything is a product of the natural universe and the natural laws that govern it. On this matter I have to agree.

 

How sad if the end product of science is to erase wonder. What amazes me, is that anything at all exists. It seems to me that the most likely reality should be that nothing exists. The existence of even a single Atom make my mind reel. The complex simplicity of the physical universe is highly suspicions. The abundant potential energy at the inception and the phases of matter seem a little too convenient to just "Be" but the crowning miracle is that anything is self aware and cognizant.

 

For me, those last two might well be the core of reality from which all else was imagined and created.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the movie yesterday. It was excellent, very thought provoking and hardly religious propaganda. Those of you who were disappointed with Stein for addressing this subject should really check it out. I think you will be surprised. You will definitely have your views on ID challenged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw the movie yesterday. It was excellent, very thought provoking and hardly religious propaganda. Those of you who were disappointed with Stein for addressing this subject should really check it out. I think you will be surprised. You will definitely have your views on ID challenged.

How many people were in the theater when you were there. Tell the truth, cause christians don't lie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How many people were in the theater when you were there. Tell the truth, cause christians don't lie.

Not that it is relavent to the discussion, but I saw it in a small theatre that was maybe half full. I doubt it will be a box office hit. Hollywood's vapid glitter and glitz will be more popular than a well made thought provoking film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If life were created where did the creators come from?

 

Read the 4 book Rama series by Arthur C. Clarke. The last book explains how life started in the Universe and does a pretty good job of it. I think even religious people could get behind it.

 

I was born and raised a catholic, drifted from the flock and had lots of fun. But since my accident I see nothing intelligent in our design. In fact I see huge flaws.

 

If there was a hand in our creation then whatever did it has abandoned us and we must make it home on our own or we are not worthy to join family.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If life were created where did the creators come from?

How life began is only one part of the question. The larger question is how did anything begin, and if it just happened where did it come from?

I have read Rama...Arthur C Clark did not know the answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How sad if the end product of science is to erase wonder. What amazes me, is that anything at all exists. It seems to me that the most likely reality should be that nothing exists. The existence of even a single Atom make my mind reel. The complex simplicity of the physical universe is highly suspicions. The abundant potential energy at the inception and the phases of matter seem a little too convenient to just "Be" but the crowning miracle is that anything is self aware and cognizant.

 

How sad the first sentence contradicts the rest of the paragraph.

 

Let go of cynicism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If life were created where did the creators come from?

 

Read the 4 book Rama series by Arthur C. Clarke. The last book explains how life started in the Universe and does a pretty good job of it. I think even religious people could get behind it.

 

I was born and raised a catholic, drifted from the flock and had lots of fun. But since my accident I see nothing intelligent in our design. In fact I see huge flaws.

 

If there was a hand in our creation then whatever did it has abandoned us and we must make it home on our own or we are not worthy to join family.

 

I am always amazed that one of the oldest religions on earth (that of the Tigress/Euphrates delta swamps) centres on humanity being stranded on the earth and having someone take them back from whence we came. The first recorded example of end times and a return to heaven.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How so?

 

Nevermind. I missed the "if".

 

But the rest I agree with. The deeper we peer into nature the greater our wonder.

 

The misuse of faith, to provide easy certainty, is also

a tragedy.

 

Jim Wallis -"Faith Works" author to David Suskind:

 

''Faith can cut in so many ways,'' he said. ''If you're penitent and not triumphal, it can move us to repentance and accountability and help us reach for something higher than ourselves. That can be a powerful thing, a thing that moves us beyond politics as usual, like Martin Luther King did. But when it's designed to certify our righteousness -- that can be a dangerous thing. Then it pushes self-criticism aside. There's no reflection.

 

''Where people often get lost is on this very point,'' he said after a moment of thought. ''Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not -- not ever -- to the thing we as humans so very much want.''

 

And what is that?

 

''Easy certainty.''

Link to post
Share on other sites
How many people were in the theater when you were there. Tell the truth, cause christians don't lie.

oh, that reminds me, i meant to tell you i also saw the forbidden kingdom last tuesday in the same theater i saw expelled and again there were only 3 people in the theater.

Link to post
Share on other sites
oh, that reminds me, i meant to tell you i also saw the forbidden kingdom last tuesday in the same theater i saw expelled and again there were only 3 people in the theater.

 

Movies.... well........I dunno. Was it the same three people? Maybe they're stalking you. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
all that's been posted already...did you read the thread? :rolleyes: or see the movie?

 

i still think you may be lumping all of i.d. into creationisms. i get the impression it is more diverse than that, especially after watching that movie.

 

I take it you no longer hold this position then. Otherwise please 'splain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Movies.... well........I dunno. Was it the same three people? Maybe they're stalking you. :D

no, i was the only one that was the same the other two were different :) i'm beginning to think either this is the best place to watch movies ever or they may close down soon :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know you exist or better yet, how do you know the physical existence your senses perceive is real? Given the correct drugs I can make you hallucinate all sorts of realities. Maybe you are merely the dreams of some sort of cosmic computer. In your case maybe you prefer the term nightmare.

 

I suspect without any evidence that you tentatively subscribe to the "I think, therefore I am" school. You trust you exist and the physical world is indeed how you perceive it to be. In other words you have "Faith" in your reality.

 

A central theme of religion is the concept of faith. God or not, it appears to be the core lesson the universe wants us to learn.

 

While science has rendered, silly, specific superstitions of this religion or that. i.e. the Earth is the center of the solar system. I'm not aware of any experimental evidence that God's existence is impossible.

 

BJ 's view and can I assume your's as well is that everything is a product of the natural universe and the natural laws that govern it. On this matter I have to agree.

 

How sad if the end product of science is to erase wonder. What amazes me, is that anything at all exists. It seems to me that the most likely reality should be that nothing exists. The existence of even a single Atom make my mind reel. The complex simplicity of the physical universe is highly suspicions. The abundant potential energy at the inception and the phases of matter seem a little too convenient to just "Be" but the crowning miracle is that anything is self aware and cognizant.

 

For me, those last two might well be the core of reality from which all else was imagined and created.

 

Give me a few examples where human existance has been a benefit to this planet.

 

there you go again.... 'no evidence of none existence = existance." it's just plain weak!

 

Science erases wonder with facts or provable theory once they are known.

 

We all create our own reality. Your reality has a designer my reality has natural laws to explain the simple complexities of the universe. Now you're saying your percieved reality is more real than mine because it's faith based?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Give me a few examples where human existance has been a benefit to this planet.

 

Liberals claim the mantel of compassion yet they routinely express their disgust for Humanity.

 

In any case here is one answer to your ridiculous question.

 

Brazil has opened a DNA bank to preserve genetic material of its endangered plant life. Its goal is to help protect rare plants threatened by extinction in a country that has the world's greatest variety of plant species.

 

The DNA bank, which is based at the Jardim Botânico (Botanical Garden) in Rio de Janeiro, employs five researchers. They plan to collect at least 1,000 plant species each year to 'deposit' in the bank. Samples of specimens will be dried out and have DNA samples extracted, after which they will be frozen and stored.

 

.... Try getting Nature to do the same ....

 

Oh, did I mention Art, Literature and philosophy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Liberals claim the mantel of compassion yet they routinely express their disgust for Humanity.

 

In any case here is one answer to your ridiculous question.

 

Brazil has opened a DNA bank to preserve genetic material of its endangered plant life. Its goal is to help protect rare plants threatened by extinction in a country that has the world's greatest variety of plant species.

 

The DNA bank, which is based at the Jardim Botânico (Botanical Garden) in Rio de Janeiro, employs five researchers. They plan to collect at least 1,000 plant species each year to 'deposit' in the bank. Samples of specimens will be dried out and have DNA samples extracted, after which they will be frozen and stored.

 

.... Try getting Nature to do the same ....

 

Oh, did I mention Art, Literature and philosophy?

 

Nature doesn't have to. It's called evolution, survival of the fittest, natural selection. It's been going on for billions of years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nature doesn't have to. It's called evolution, survival of the fittest, natural selection. It's been going on for billions of years.

 

And how is the natural selection and evolution of man as the fittest an offense to nature then?

 

Are Humans less natural than salamanders? Sounds like you are leaning toward the supernatural creation of mankind and you are angry at God for screwing it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And how is the natural selection and evolution of man as the fittest an offense to nature then?

WTF are you talking about?

 

Are Humans less natural than salamanders? Sounds like you are leaning toward the supernatural creation of mankind and you are angry at God for screwing it up.

Wait a minute, a second ago there, you were talking about saving seeds. Then you said "try getting nature to do that" to which I replied Nature doesn't have to...............blah blah blah... Now your talking about humans the fittest/offense to nature? wtf? Stay on the topic, I was saying that seeds evolve like anything else to survive disease, climate whatever. Nature doesn't have to store em' in a building somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And how is the natural selection and evolution of man as the fittest an offense to nature then?

WTF are you talking about?

 

Lest you forget the post you responded to was addressed to Liquid. In his post he made this challenge "Give me a few examples where human existance has been a benefit to this planet."

 

Obviously he thinks Humans are a net negative. Unless you say when you jump into the middle of someone else's discussion how am I to know that you don't share his view of man as an affront to nature.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I take it you no longer hold this position then. Otherwise please 'splain.

what would give you that idea? no, i will not 'splain as i have already done so in this thread...did you read the thread? or see the movie?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Liberals claim the mantel of compassion yet they routinely express their disgust for Humanity.

 

In any case here is one answer to your ridiculous question.

 

Brazil has opened a DNA bank to preserve genetic material of its endangered plant life. Its goal is to help protect rare plants threatened by extinction in a country that has the world's greatest variety of plant species.

 

The DNA bank, which is based at the Jardim Botânico (Botanical Garden) in Rio de Janeiro, employs five researchers. They plan to collect at least 1,000 plant species each year to 'deposit' in the bank. Samples of specimens will be dried out and have DNA samples extracted, after which they will be frozen and stored.

 

.... Try getting Nature to do the same ....

 

Oh, did I mention Art, Literature and philosophy?

 

One COULD make the case that we wouldn't need a DNA bank if man were not driving species to extinction daily.

 

Levin's column noted that on average, a distinct species of plant or animal becomes extinct every 20 minutes.

 

 

Of course extinction happens "naturally" too - species win and lose all the time. Just not this quickly, unless you get something like a planet killer comment or an infestation of hyperactive hominids. But maybe that is natural too then - after all we are animals that are merely outcompeting all the other plants animals and insects, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
One COULD make the case that we wouldn't need a DNA bank if man were not driving species to extinction daily.

 

Levin's column noted that on average, a distinct species of plant or animal becomes extinct every 20 minutes.

Of course extinction happens "naturally" too - species win and lose all the time. Just not this quickly, unless you get something like a planet killer comment or an infestation of hyperactive hominids. But maybe that is natural too then - after all we are animals that are merely outcompeting all the other plants animals and insects, right?

right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Liberals claim the mantel of compassion yet they routinely express their disgust for Humanity.

 

In any case here is one answer to your ridiculous question.

 

Brazil has opened a DNA bank to preserve genetic material of its endangered plant life. Its goal is to help protect rare plants threatened by extinction in a country that has the world's greatest variety of plant species.

 

The DNA bank, which is based at the Jardim Botânico (Botanical Garden) in Rio de Janeiro, employs five researchers. They plan to collect at least 1,000 plant species each year to 'deposit' in the bank. Samples of specimens will be dried out and have DNA samples extracted, after which they will be frozen and stored.

 

.... Try getting Nature to do the same ....

 

Oh, did I mention Art, Literature and philosophy?

 

 

You kidding me now right? I have no disgust for humanity. I would contend that our ability to store DNA is not a testament to how we positively impact this planet. It's another meaingless point made. What do you say about ripping down the rain forest so we can plant more food for humans that are over taxing the earth of minerals, water, air, etc. Yeah, we're smart. real smart. How about our oceans that are being decimated by over fishing and suffocating by too many humans dumpng their shit into it?

 

...try getting natue to do that! So, you put man over nature then? Man is superior to nature because you believe a god created a planet pecificaly for you and your ability to save plants that man kills. WOW!

 

"Art, Literature and philosophy" - construct of the human mind. what's your point?

 

And how is the natural selection and evolution of man as the fittest an offense to nature then?

 

Are Humans less natural than salamanders? Sounds like you are leaning toward the supernatural creation of mankind and you are angry at God for screwing it up.

 

duuude... you've lost it. another bizaar, huge and meaningless leap.

 

In his post he made this challenge "Give me a few examples where human existance has been a benefit to this planet."

 

Obviously he thinks Humans are a net negative.

 

Yes! Our presence is a net negative to this planet. So, other than storing some DNA, what other wonderful things have we done to shepard our planet, you know the one that was intellegnetly design for us to exist on?

Link to post
Share on other sites
after all we are animals that are merely outcompeting all the other plants animals and insects, right?

 

We outcompete them with our minds only! We've evolved to be insanely unadapted to nature. We've adapted nature to protect us by making clothes, shelter, heaters, coolers, guns, cars, planes, etc. The price is that we are no longer living within the balance of nature as evidence by increasing extinction levels.

 

Maybe that is part of the intelligent design. Human's will eventually become extinct themselves and nature will inherit the earth once again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
One COULD make the case that we wouldn't need a DNA bank if man were not driving species to extinction daily.

 

Levin's column noted that on average, a distinct species of plant or animal becomes extinct every 20 minutes.

Of course extinction happens "naturally" too - species win and lose all the time. Just not this quickly, unless you get something like a planet killer comment or an infestation of hyperactive hominids. But maybe that is natural too then - after all we are animals that are merely outcompeting all the other plants animals and insects, right?

 

Nature has exterminated far more species that man ever will. Man may be the only hope to preserve much of nature's better efforts. Not the evil that has never done a positive thing for the Earth as Liquid suggested.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no disgust for humanity.

 

Yes! Our presence is a net negative to this planet.

 

Huh? I think you are confused. Must be a Democrat.

 

But I get your point. Humans are cool if it's just you, a few buds, some sexy ladies and enough Chinese to keep the toys coming.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nature has exterminated far more species that man ever will. Man may be the only hope to preserve much of nature's better efforts. Not the evil that has never done a positive thing for the Earth as Liquid suggested.

It is tough to convey tongue in cheek on a forum...sigh.

 

True - there are far more species that have gone extinct throughout than exist today. Many, many times the number - this is not disputed.

 

The difference between then and now is the extinction rates we are experiencing today have generally only been seen when closely linked to planetwide natural disasters (e.g. the so-called "Dinosaur Killer Asteroid", volcanic eruptions that dim the sun substantially for years, etc.) and other radical shifts in climate over thousands (and millions) of years.

 

We have no such single catastrophic event, and no massive change in the earth's climate (even the "Climate Change" we are experience is not as radical as some past events). Todays mass extinctions are pretty much tied to human activity, not natural disaster, climatic shift, or some other reason. It's mostly because we are killing them - either directly by exploitation or predator elimination (e.g. Stellar's Sea Cows, Javan & Caspian Tigers) or indirectly by habitat encroachment, indavertent or intentional introduction of invading species (zerbra mussels, Nile Perch, etc.) and the like (more of an impact on insects & other invertebrates, plants & fish).

 

It is interesting to note that evidence indicates that the vertebrate extinction rate may be as high as 7,000 times the "background" normal extinction rate prior to the last few hundred years.

 

The fundamental question becomes is what humans are doing to the earth "right" or "wrong". You think it's just swell, global warming is a fib and those suck-ass pansy snail darters and spotted owls would have gone extinct eventually anyway, so what's the problem? Who gives a shit about a three inch fish, right? There are lots of little three inch fish in the world.

 

The problem though is that the mass extinctions may be a sign of a larger problem - which may be that we are evolving our out species right out of existance. Simply put, when we wipe out our food sources and cripple our own ability to feed our growing numbers and keep our population healthy and unpoisoned.

 

Much of it is about what your vision of the future is too. Maybe I'm not comfortable with a vision of the future where mankind has completely despoiled the Earth and crowded out everything but our own industries and population. Maybe I've read too much Philip K. Dick and Harry Harrison to like that picture, but it does not seem to bother you. That's fundamentally a "quality of life" issue and completely subjective and emotional; I happen to put a value on the presence of creatures like whales, manatees, eagles, and yes, snail darters.

 

So if you are good with a future where we've wiped out the vast majority of the biodiversity on Earth and mankind is supporting our billions from chemically reprocessed yeast because our habitats no longer support life, the genetic stock of the original food sources is depleted beyond recovery, and there are too many people to feed from complex proteins any more then the loss of species, environments, habitats etc. at an unforseen rate shouldn't bother you at all. It's OK, the yellow and red are good, but I wouldn't eat the Green.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No God, no sin, right?

Stick it in the bag along with not observing the sabbath, eating pork, wearing cloth of two fibres, disobeying my parents, boiling a goat in the milk of it's mother...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huh? I think you are confused. Must be a Democrat.

 

But I get your point. Humans are cool if it's just you, a few buds, some sexy ladies and enough Chinese to keep the toys coming.

 

...chinese to keep the toys coming!? You mut be a neocon republican.

 

You really do make some great leaps of faith! More power to you. You may want to put ear plugs in because it can be a bitch to get all the sand out once you pull your head out.

 

Let me get this straight: Man is the best becasue we can preserve that which we have pushed to extinction!? Is that how you justify an intelligent designer? Maybe we should try to use our intellect to save animals and the environment BEFORE we put them on the extinction list and then have to save them after the fact...

 

"Man as nature's best friend in the end" hahahahahahahaha - now that is funny! I drive my car into a wall and spend the time and effort to fix it up! Thank goodness for my ability to fix a car that I smashed.

 

So, using your resasoning, there must be an intelligent designer that has allowed us to become smart enough to fix all our mistakes. Hmmm, interesting design concept. Designed to destroy and fix itself all in one!

 

No god, no sin? I'm in!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ummm, don't stare, but Florida's doing something.

NS

 

Most telling part of that article:

 

To help clarify that issue, when a similar bill was debated and passed last week in Florida's Senate, opponents introduced an amendment that would allow teachers to present the full range of scientific viewpoints on sex education.

 

The amendment was quickly voted down.

This particular bit of hypocrisy is particularly rich. The ID idiots are claiming this is for "intellectual freedom" to be able to "discuss intellectually and criticize all aspects of evolution" and whatnot. Of course, such freedom already exists - nothing says you can not critically discuss the strengths and weakness of the theory of evolution of any other theory. These whackadoos are just trying to get the camel's nose under the tent to mandate presenting "scientific alternatives" like ID in the class room.

 

These people need to be stopped.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Killery - question for you...

 

Locusts - good or bad for the planet? Is their way of doing things destructive?

 

Do you see any parallels with some of man's behaviors?

 

I honestly do no know what their place in the chain of life is.

 

Somewhere along the line people developed a mistaken faith that natural selection is this perfect evolutionary engine with an autopilot that unerringly steers toward perfection. Well it isn't. It has no view of the future and the selections it makes take no account of what might change in the environment tomorrow. Hence the near extinctions that comet impacts and ice ages etc visited upon the Earth in the past. I remember a lecture where the prof said that 99% of the species that ever were became extinct before homo erectus first stood up.

 

The dynamic has changed. Even if there was no intelligent designer in the past one is emerging in the near future. Us.

 

For better of worse we are on the threshold of re-engineering life on this planet and unlike the near sighted evolutionary machine of the past this time it is intelligent and can at least guess what the future may present.

 

I know you believe that this amazing Universe sprang into existence one day with all the natural laws conveniently ordered to allow suns, orbiting planets, plasma, gas, liquid and solid phases of matter, conducting elements and insulating elements. Reactive elements and noble elements. etc etc.

 

Professor Lewin invited the top six winners in his physics challenge to his apartment in Harvard square for a delicious lobster dinner. At that dinner we talked about a wide range of physics and philosophical topics and I remember him posing the question that went something like this.

 

"Have you ever considered that if every single natural law of physics wasn't exactly as it is the whole universe thing and life in particular probably would not work"

 

What an convenient coincidence that when this Universe popped into existence from nothing it magically included the exact set of natural laws that makes life, the universe and everything possible. My apologies to the late Douglas Adams. (thank you elle for the correction)

 

Boy, I bet that the chances of that happening was a one in a googolplex.

 

Yes. Yes. I know. saying that someone helped organize all those laws only raises the question what created that someone. To which I have to admit I don't know but I can hope and have faith that one day I will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I honestly do no know what their place in the chain of life is.

 

Somewhere along the line people developed a mistaken faith that natural selection is this perfect evolutionary engine with an autopilot that unerringly steers toward perfection. Well it isn't. It has no view of the future and the selections it makes take no account of what might change in the environment tomorrow. Hence the near extinctions that comet impacts and ice ages etc visited upon the Earth in the past. I remember a lectu