How does Randomness and Chaos fit in with intelligent design?

[shunyadragon]

So discuss, then. Nothing is preventing you. If my statement that the notion of 'laws' as they pertain to the natural world did not originate in Judeo-Christian doctrine, then tell us why you disagree.

The concept of the Laws of Nature evolved for practical reasons in both the Orient and the West by the consistency and predictability of the observations and testing nature. Actually the beginnings of the Laws of Nature began in Greek and Chinese cultures, and not remotely related to the Judeo-Christian concept of Laws of God. In Europe in fact the advance development of the Laws of Nature and science evolved on a secular basis, and in contention and conflict with Judeo-Christian religions.

The very concept of 'law' implies a conscious and deliberate imposition which nature must obey.

No, I actually consider this response a bit bizzaro. The Laws of Nature are based on the consistency and predictability of nature. For example: The Law of gravity apply (not the foolish notion 'must be obeyed') because if you jump off a 10 story building you will not fly, and you will go splat, and the basic laws of Newtonian physics apply uniformly.

"When you lose sight of the fact that the order principle and the random principle go together, that's exactly the same predicament as losing sight of the fact that all individually delineated things and beings are connected underneath."

Alan Watts

I actually like Alan Watts, and yes it is a "fact that all individually delineated things and beings are connected underneath."

Science over the millennia have developed the Laws of Physics and later Quantum Mechanics based on practical predictable experimental methods to explain the physical nature of our universal connection independent of religious beliefs.

Religious beliefs explain the spiritual universal connection that underlie our physical existence and from my perspective both are in harmony. By the evidence our science and technology, including the computers we are communicating on are based on sound, predictable and reliable Laws of Nature developed by science. Of course, the Laws of Nature developed by science are not the ultimate Laws of our physical existence and science does not claim this is the case.

 

[David T]

Given that we have a propensity to recognize patterns and see symmetry in nature, it leads to IMO, erroneous conclusions that such things are intentionally designed. Concepts and beliefs come about because we do see patterns and symmetry in a state of stability, therefore people come to the conclusion that it is somehow manufactured or created by a higher power or supernatural intelligence.

Very rarely have I ever seen creationist address chaos and randomness that is common place in nature. So I ask it here.

How does Randomness and Chaos fit in with intelligent design?

Intelligent design is a random Chaos statement what is camaflauged? Through the elks eyes I am random chaos! I see the elk the elk cannot see me except emperically!!! I am invisible to the elk I see the the elk the elk cannot see me. The elks intellect its aspect that we call smart is limited to its genetic domain elk. Our genetic domain is fractionally more developed fractional that's it. Our fractionally developed not superior intellect is capable of hiding in random chaos of the elk. We then turn our gaze upon nature and we see camaflauged and proclaim religiously intelligent design or random chaos. Like an elk looking at a hunters blind look random chaos, or ELK FELLOW ELK!!

 

[sealchan]

This is similar to the Buddhist koan, "If you meet Buddha on the path kill him!"

My interpretation is that one should not seek an Enlightened one or Master to idolize and follow.

Well, you do need a trainer, but you should not see the trainer as the goal (as you say not to idolize or just follow (be around)). You should, however, receive the trainer's teachings and practice what is being taught. Once you know the teachings and the practice the teacher becomes less important than the discipline of study and practice.

But, of course, if you start to measure anything, you are straying!

 

[sealchan]

You understand models of reality defined as 'subjective' and 'objective'. Both are mental constructs about reality; they are not Reality itself.

Without a self, there can be no subjective view. Buddhism is a view transcendent of both subject and object, and as such, is not a belief, even though doctrines are to be found within the formal teaching that is Buddhism. The actual experience is not one of a doctrinal belief, but of direct experience with Reality itself. Because you are looking at Buddhism via the mind, you conclude that it is a personal view. (it isn't).

While I did say that Buddhism is a 'science of the mind', that is merely a conditional statement, since most people believe that the entity called 'mind' is real. In reality, mind is a self-created principle, and as such, is illusory. So really, the Buddhistic experience (esp in Zen) is that of 'no-mind'). it is more an experience in pure consciousness rather than in 'mind'. 'Mind' thinks; consciousness sees. Patanjali, in his Yoga Sutras, stated:

"Yoga (ie; 'direct union with the true nature of Reality) is the cessation of all the activities of the mind".

It is this yoga which the Buddha himself experienced.

It is this 'direct seeing', via consciousness, into the true nature of Reality that 'mind' can be accurately examined, and seen for what it actually is. Either we see things as they are, or as they are not. It is the mind that creates delusions and distorts how we see reality, even in science.

No, its "mind sees, consciousness thinks".

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, you do need a trainer, but you should not see the trainer as the goal (as you say not to idolize or just follow (be around)). You should, however, receive the trainer's teachings and practice what is being taught. Once you know the teachings and the practice the teacher becomes less important than the discipline of study and practice.

I have been involved with various schools of Buddhism, and Arts of the Way (Martial Arts) for more than fifty years, and in that period I had a number of different 'teachers' from Zazen to two different Chinese Buddhist teachers in China, and including Fung Shui, and Chinese Arts of the Way in the parks. I do not claim to achieving anything, but continue the journey. Each teacher and school I was involved with offered something to my journey.

But, of course, if you start to measure anything, you are straying!

Other than the practical everyday world of technology and science I do not measure anything.

What are referring to in terms of measuring?

 

[shunyadragon]

No, its "mind sees, consciousness thinks".

I make no distinction between the mind and consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

No, its "mind sees, consciousness thinks".

Consciousness is the default state. It must be present before thinking can occur. One does not think oneself into being conscious. Are you confusing consciousness with being alert?

 

[sealchan]

I have been involved with various schools of Buddhism, and Arts of the Way (Martial Arts) for more than fifty years, and in that period I had a number of different 'teachers' from Zazen to two different Chinese Buddhist teachers in China, and including Fung Shui, and Chinese Arts of the Way in the parks. I do not claim to achieving anything, but continue the journey. Each teacher and school I was involved with offered something to my journey.




Other than the practical everyday world of technology and science I do not measure anything.

What are referring to in terms of measuring?

Your practice is far greater than mine! I've sat in zazen for awhile years ago and have read various Zen works. I've never had a personal teacher.

My use of the word measuring was in a way close to mind/consciousness (I agree that there is not much to distinguish between these two words). Measuring implies that something has a quality that one can perform a comparative quantification of.

My understanding of zazen is that it is a stilling of the mind. It is a precisely subjective experience of consciousness. Talking about it, I always feel like I am speaking the truth and missing the mark simultaneously. My understanding of zazen is also that it involves a process of the taming of the mind. It leads, perhaps, to the most objective form of consciousness.

 

[sealchan]

Consciousness is the default state. It must be present before thinking can occur. One does not think oneself into being conscious. Are you confusing consciousness with being alert?

You think that consciousness must be present before thinking can occur. I suspect that the opposite is (also) true. Thinking goes on unconsciously and without self-conscious direction. This becomes immediately evident when sitting in zazen. It is also evident in cognitive science which shows the mind processing information and altering what a person reports as having occurred in his/her mind. Also, in the realization that dreams are a very intelligent composition of the brain that occurs with the dreamer often as merely a spectator.

When one practices thinking, like any other skill, it becomes less conscious and one can quickly leap to accurate conclusions. Spelling out all the steps of thought takes much more time even when being done for one's own private benefit.

 

[shunyadragon]

Your practice is far greater than mine! I've sat in zazen for awhile years ago and have read various Zen works. I've never had a personal teacher.

I was student of Aikido, Iado, and Kendo for eight years. Zazen was a part of the training above the basic level of Aikido.

My use of the word measuring was in a way close to mind/consciousness (I agree that there is not much to distinguish between these two words). Measuring implies that something has a quality that one can perform a comparative quantification of.

My understanding of zazen is that it is a stilling of the mind. It is a precisely subjective experience of consciousness. Talking about it, I always feel like I am speaking the truth and missing the mark simultaneously. My understanding of zazen is also that it involves a process of the taming of the mind. It leads, perhaps, to the most objective form of consciousness.

There is no truth to speak of.

The view I was taught is efforts to tame the mind or emptying the mind are foolish notions that invites the thousand monkees. The least possible effort one makes the best result one achieves until no effort yields no achievement.

 

[godnotgod]

You think that consciousness must be present before thinking can occur. I suspect that the opposite is (also) true. Thinking goes on unconsciously and without self-conscious direction. This becomes immediately evident when sitting in zazen. It is also evident in cognitive science which shows the mind processing information and altering what a person reports as having occurred in his/her mind. Also, in the realization that dreams are a very intelligent composition of the brain that occurs with the dreamer often as merely a spectator.

When one practices thinking, like any other skill, it becomes less conscious and one can quickly leap to accurate conclusions. Spelling out all the steps of thought takes much more time even when being done for one's own private benefit.

In meditation, thinking comes to a complete halt (ideally) at some point. But one remains conscious and more focused after that. So the thinking mind is dependent upon consciousness and not the other way around. Consciousness is present before and after the thinking mind comes into play. You see before you think about what you see, because thinking is in time, while seeing is not in time. Mind is sculpted consciousness which creates 'I think'. Consciousness itself is unborn, unconditioned, uncreated. It just sees things as they are without the mind forming a concept about how they are; IOW, without an agent of insight called 'I', because it is insight itself. This is the transformation of consciousness that must take place when Enlightenment is realized.

The question Zen would ask when thought is detected and observed is: "who, or what, is it that is thinking, meditating, observing?" IOW, thoughts are not MY thoughts: they are just thoughts.

(Descartes thought he had it nailed with his cogito ergo sum: "I think, therefore I am" , failing to realize that 'I' was arbitrarily presupposed by none other than 'I', of course. And Zen would ask: 'When not thinking, you don't exist?', LOL.)

edit: Ultimately, what one thinks of as 'my mind' and 'my consciousness' is neither; it is the consciousness of The Universe; ie 'Universal Consciousness'. No 'I' to which mind or consciousness belongs exists in actuality. Seeing this is realization.

 

[godnotgod]

My understanding of zazen is that it is a stilling of the mind. It is a precisely subjective experience of consciousness. Talking about it, I always feel like I am speaking the truth and missing the mark simultaneously. My understanding of zazen is also that it involves a process of the taming of the mind. It leads, perhaps, to the most objective form of consciousness.

Zen is the realization that there is no mind to still, nor anyone who stills it.

The Zen experience is transcendent of the objective and the subjective, both being conceptual frameworks which mind creates in an attempt to 'make sense' of a reality it does not, cannot, rationally comprehend. So it conceptualizes models of reality, and then attempts to make reality fit the conceptual framework. It works for awhile, but ultimately fails, because new concepts reveal the old ones as incomplete or flawed in some way. This is what has been occurring in science. But Zen is a direct reflection of nature and as such, is without flaw.

 

[sealchan]

In meditation, thinking comes to a complete halt (ideally) at some point. But one remains conscious and more focused after that. So the thinking mind is dependent upon consciousness and not the other way around. Consciousness is present before and after the thinking mind comes into play. You see before you think about what you see, because thinking is in time, while seeing is not in time. Mind is sculpted consciousness which creates 'I think'. Consciousness itself is unborn, unconditioned, uncreated. It just sees things as they are without the mind forming a concept about how they are; IOW, without an agent of insight called 'I', because it is insight itself. This is the transformation of consciousness that must take place when Enlightenment is realized.

The question Zen would ask when thought is detected and observed is: "who, or what, is it that is thinking, meditating, observing?" IOW, thoughts are not MY thoughts: they are just thoughts.

(Descartes thought he had it nailed with his cogito ergo sum: "I think, therefore I am" , failing to realize that 'I' was arbitrarily presupposed by none other than 'I', of course. And Zen would ask: 'When not thinking, you don't exist?', LOL.)

edit: Ultimately, what one thinks of as 'my mind' and 'my consciousness' is neither; it is the consciousness of The Universe; ie 'Universal Consciousness'. No 'I' to which mind or consciousness belongs exists in actuality. Seeing this is realization.

I cannot disagree with this...but I also can.

To say consciousness is this or that or un-this or un-that is like speaking of God. It is a faith-based statement that is made in a context in which it is meant to be taken as axiomatic. It is, in itself, not subject to objective verification only subjective agreement between people willing to admit that axiom.

To say that "I" does not exist is effective when speaking to one who has never considered that. Then there is a chance of new knowledge because that is true...and yet one can also appreciate Descartes. So how can one ultimately say which of these two perspectives is more true? From what perspective can one make this claim? It is faith-based. That is valid. Each is valid.

My point is that there are multiple ways of looking at this with conflicting rational outcomes and that each is valid within a limited scope. Without perfect faith there is no experience of perfect objectivity. There is no single Truth only a finite set of approximating Truths. Each Truth will likely conflict with each other Truth but should do so in a measured and describable way. These ways indicate the prevailing mysteries of our experience. Science and religion may provide answers but the experience of humanity will always partially break the legitimacy of those answers should they pretend to universality and to completeness.

We are, perhaps, facing into the fire of the same inner realization but speaking as if we are in disagreement. It is as if we do not recognize each other because of the word-clothes we are putting on. But neither of us should ask the other to remove our clothes even if that appears to be the most forthright approach to a reconciliation of perspectives. In the end the fire in the middle is to hot for language beings.

 

[sealchan]

Zen is the realization that there is no mind to still, nor anyone who stills it.

The Zen experience is transcendent of the objective and the subjective, both being conceptual frameworks which mind creates in an attempt to 'make sense' of a reality it does not, cannot, rationally comprehend. So it conceptualizes models of reality, and then attempts to make reality fit the conceptual framework. It works for awhile, but ultimately fails, because new concepts reveal the old ones as incomplete or flawed in some way. This is what has been occurring in science. But Zen is a direct reflection of nature and as such, is without flaw.

To happily pick up something, carry it for a while and to willingly set it down again when it no longer works...that is the goal I think. For science...and Zen.

 

[godnotgod]

To happily pick up something, carry it for a while and to willingly set it down again when it no longer works...that is the goal I think. For science...and Zen.

It no longer works because, the moment you have 'picked up something', you have made into a frozen doctrine, when it's true nature is that it is a living experience that cannot be grasped*. But Zen would ask: who is it that is picking something up, and who is it that is putting it down? There is nothing to pick up nor put down, nor any self that is doing so. Unlike science, Zen does not attach itself to anything. It forms no doctrine or concept about what tt is seeing or experiencing. Zen is simply to see and experience things as they actually are, from one moment to the next, without contaminating the present with the past. Like a perfect mirror, it reflects perfectly what it sees, without retaining any image. Unlike science, it makes no attempt to make reality fit into it's conceptual frameworks.

The goal of Zen is not to attach to anything at all, but simply to see things as they are. It neither adds nor subtracts anything from one's experience of the present moment.

"The spirituality found in Zen is not to think about God while peeling the potatoes, but simply to peel the potatoes"
Alan Watts

*Herein lies the difference between the mystic and the orthodox believer; between the first hand direct experience of reality and a belief system based upon doctrine that is merely an idea or set of ideas about reality.

 

[Darkstorn]

I feel you guys are being quite off-topic. You in particular, godnotgod. You have a propensity to take threads and make them about your thing.

But this thread is about this: How does randomness and chaos fit in with intelligent design?

 

[godnotgod]

I cannot disagree with this...but I also can.

To say consciousness is this or that or un-this or un-that is like speaking of God. It is a faith-based statement that is made in a context in which it is meant to be taken as axiomatic. It is, in itself, not subject to objective verification only subjective agreement between people willing to admit that axiom.

Neither God nor consciousness can be spoken of in positive terms; they can only be spoken of in negative terms; iow, what they are not, since both are beyond form, beyond concept, beyond imagination. Neither can be contained in any context of the ordinary rational mind. It is for this reason that the koan in Zen exists: to burst the rational mind of all concepts. Your comments are still within the sphere of belief and faith. The transformation of consciousness that occurs is beyond all concepts of objective or subjective; beyond all belief systems or doctrines. It is the dissolution of the subject/object split, which the mind has formed and is firmly attached to. Essentially, the experience of God is none other than the current experience of the ordinary mind. It is only that the ordinary mind does not know that it is, in reality, the miraculous mind. This is the beauty of Zen: it sees and recognizes that both are one and the same experience. As Deepak Chopra has said:

"The spiritual experience is the merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality"

Consciousness is immediately verifiable at all times as real and present, when it is no longer seen as an object of observation; when it is realized directly that who and what you are is none other than pure consciousness without an agent of consciousness, and when it is understood that what you previously thought to be 'my' consciousness is the consciousness of the Universe itself.

To say that "I" does not exist is effective when speaking to one who has never considered that. Then there is a chance of new knowledge because that is true...and yet one can also appreciate Descartes. So how can one ultimately say which of these two perspectives is more true? From what perspective can one make this claim? It is faith-based. That is valid. Each is valid.

Are they? We may say: "Oh, look! A whirlpool!" But there is no such thing called 'whirlpool'; there is only whirling water. We say: "I think", when there is no such "I" that thinks; there is only thinking itself. The illusory mind freezes reality into a conceptual framework called 'whirlpool' and 'I'. It is delusive to do so, but we do it anyway as a matter of making reality fit the conceptual framework the mind feels comfortable with. Here is the problem with Descartes' cogito ergo sum:

Søren Kierkegaard's critique
The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard provided a critical response to the cogito. Kierkegaard argues that the cogito already presupposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into two further premises:

• "x" thinks
• I am that "x"
• Therefore, I think
• Therefore, I am

Where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing.

Here, the cogito has already assumed the "I"'s existence as that which thinks. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks.

Kierkegaard argues that the value of the cogito is not its logical argument, but its psychological appeal: a thought must have something that exists to think the thought. It is psychologically difficult to think "I do not exist". But as Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or presupposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.

Cogito ergo sum - Wikipedia

My point is that there are multiple ways of looking at this with conflicting rational outcomes and that each is valid within a limited scope. Without perfect faith there is no experience of perfect objectivity. There is no single Truth only a finite set of approximating Truths. Each Truth will likely conflict with each other Truth but should do so in a measured and describable way. These ways indicate the prevailing mysteries of our experience. Science and religion may provide answers but the experience of humanity will always partially break the legitimacy of those answers should they pretend to universality and to completeness.

And my point is that all of these multiple views are personal views about the ultimate nature of Reality and are invalid and distorted as seen through the lens of a personal, rational self. Not that the ultimate experience of Reality is irrational, but that it is beyond Reason. There is no such 'perfect objectivity' in the authentic experience of Reality; there is a perfect merging of self and other, when it is realized that self and other never existed to begin with. While it is true that pretension to universality and completeness does exist, it is true only because one continues to cling to this view as one's own personal view. But universality and completeness are actually the true Reality. This is the transformation of consciousness that occurs when, for example, the koan succeeds in imploding the thinking mind and The Universe floods in. You, then, are none other than The Universe. There is no 'observer of the observation'; no 'experiencer of the experience'. You are the experience itself.

We are, perhaps, facing into the fire of the same inner realization but speaking as if we are in disagreement. It is as if we do not recognize each other because of the word-clothes we are putting on. But neither of us should ask the other to remove our clothes even if that appears to be the most forthright approach to a reconciliation of perspectives. In the end the fire in the middle is to hot for language beings.

This is why realization can take such a long time. The problem is more than mere 'word-clothes'; it is that an idea of a self exists, and that you have your views and others have theirs, and who is to say who is right, and all the rest of of it. After many hours of meditation, self-views begin to drop away, until nothing is reached; until the mind is completely empty; (Ie 'no-mind') until there is no longer any idea of 'you' and 'I'; 'my' view vs. 'your' view. It is then, and only then, that we will see the same Reality, simply because there is only pure seeing itself. Why should it be any other way?

"When I began my study, mountains were just mountains, and trees were just trees.
During my study, mountains were no longer mountains, and trees were no longer trees.
When I realized my own Enlightenment, mountains were once again mountains, and trees were once again trees"
Zen Source

 

[godnotgod]

I feel you guys are being quite off-topic. You in particular, godnotgod. You have a propensity to take threads and make them about your thing.

But this thread is about this: How does randomness and chaos fit in with intelligent design?

Right, and that is directly related to how we see reality, which is what I am talking about. How you see reality from the get-go directly determines the models you will come up with. All I am trying to do is to demonstrate, in some small way, that there is a view which has no model; that does not see things in any particular way; that to see things as they are is the most accurate way of seeing them. Once we can attain that, science will make perfect sense, because it will then correctly be seen in the context of Reality, rather than trying to see Reality in the context of the conceptual models of science.

Seeing things as they are is not about 'my thing'. It is about the way they actually are, and not about how the sculpted and conditioned views of science or religion says they are. It is about seeing Reality with an unconditioned view. To see it this way is to see it just the way it is.

What's wrong with that?

Or perhaps you think it better to see things as they are not?

footnote: The very question: "how does randomness and chaos fit in with Intelligent Design?" is a reflection of conditioned views. So to be in a position to even attempt an answer to the question, one must first understand that the question is a loaded one, and how it is loaded. We need to get behind the rationale used in arriving at that question and the ideas reflected in that question. Dig?

 

[Darkstorn]

Right, and that is directly related to how we see reality, which is what I am talking about.

If you're so willing to prove my point there, go right ahead.

Seeing things as they are is not about 'my thing'. It is about the way they actually are, and not about how the sculpted and conditioned views of science or religion says they are. It is about seeing Reality with an unconditioned view. To see it this way is to see it just the way it is.

And yet for all this bluster, all you have is your idea of the way things are.

What's wrong with that?

For one: It leads you to the delusion that your subjective view of things is actually objective reality.

footnote: The very question: "how does randomness and chaos fit in with Intelligent Design?" is a reflection of conditioned views. So to be in a position to even attempt an answer to the question, one must first understand that the question is a loaded one, and how it is loaded. We need to get behind the rationale used in arriving at that question and the ideas reflected in that question. Dig?

You are also really adept at missing points. Good job. This isn't about deconstructing the question. This is "how does randomness and chaos fit in with intelligent design."

Bear in mind that "Intelligent Design" is a defined concept. It's not for you to deconstruct here.

You are quite literally coming into a thread and making the claim that before we can even ask the question, we must first understand your idea of reality. And you are not the OP.

Intelligent Design is a Christian concept, for the record.

/E: Just for the hell of it: I got the idea of the thread to be asking those who believe in Intelligent Design to explain their views on randomness and chaos. That's it. I think you are comically missing the point by making the claim that you're not being off-topic because you're talking about reality, and this thread happens in the context of reality. That is just plain stretching it.

I feel you're trying to make this thread about your thing, and your response to my claim would lead me to continue believing that.

This is from the OP:

Very rarely have I ever seen creationist address chaos and randomness that is common place in nature. So I ask it here.

And you're here peddling your mantra instead. Nice.

Anyhow. My only point is that you're being somewhat off-topic and was imploring you to return to the original idea of the thread. You even missed the point of that, and chose not to. Fair enough, i won't stop you. Just figured an outsider's view of your current behavior would be useful in determining whether or not you are making a mistake. You can't just only rely on your personal subjective assessment of yourself, because you are biased.

So take it as is, or don't. Your choice.

 

[godnotgod]

If you're so willing to prove my point there, go right ahead.

My comment was intended to show that I am very much on-topic: the question the OP poses reflects conditioned views of reality. I am trying to show that there exists an unconditioned view.

And yet for all this bluster, all you have is your idea of the way things are.

You keep saying that, but fail to identify exactly what that idea actually IS, and you fail because there is no such idea. It is a non-idea, which you don't know how to deal with.

For one: It leads you to the delusion that your subjective view of things is actually objective reality.

Apparently, you are not reading my content. The way things are is not my idea of the way things are. But you don't get it because you still see things via your idea of how they are, namely 'objective reality', which you think is the way things are. In addition, one cannot hold a subjective view where no self exists. The view I am referring to is one of no self-view. Try to understand: If one has a personal view, then obviously, the opposite is one that is impersonal. That means a universal view. There is no other choice. You tell me.

I never claimed that the unconditioned view of reality which I am speaking of is objective. 'Objective' is a conditioned view, as it is a product of the conceptual mind. The unconditioned view is transcendent of both the objective and the subjective. It is the merging of the subject/object split that the mind has created. I explained that. Did you not understand? Do you understand that the Universe cannot be an object of observation of an independent observer, as the 'observer' is fully integrated with that same Universe? There is no such thing as 'objective reality'. It's just an idea.

You are also really adept at missing points. Good job. This isn't about deconstructing the question. This is "how does randomness and chaos fit in with intelligent design."

Bear in mind that "Intelligent Design" is a defined concept. It's not for you to deconstruct here.

You are quite literally coming into a thread and making the claim that before we can even ask the question, we must first understand your idea of reality. And you are not the OP.

The question cannot be addressed correctly until the premises it is based upon are understood. The question exists simply because of those premises.

Intelligent Design is a Christian concept, for the record.

Right. So if you want to understand why randomness and chaos do or don't fit in with the Xtian concept of ID, one must understand what the premises of the Xtian concept of ID are. The only way you can do that is to approach it with an unconditioned mind.

/E: Just for the hell of it: I got the idea of the thread to be asking those who believe in Intelligent Design to explain their views on randomness and chaos. That's it. I think you are comically missing the point by making the claim that you're not being off-topic because you're talking about reality, and this thread happens in the context of reality. That is just plain stretching it.

I feel you're trying to make this thread about your thing, and your response to my claim would lead me to continue believing that.

This is from the OP:

And you're here peddling your mantra instead. Nice.

Anyhow. My only point is that you're being somewhat off-topic and was imploring you to return to the original idea of the thread. You even missed the point of that, and chose not to. Fair enough, i won't stop you. Just figured an outsider's view of your current behavior would be useful in determining whether or not you are making a mistake. You can't just only rely on your personal subjective assessment of yourself, because you are biased.

So take it as is, or don't. Your choice.

Now I insist that you show me exactly where this bias you are assigning to me exists. I have now explained several times that I am pointing to an unconditional view which leads one to see that order and chaos are not diametrically opposed. Bias is the product of a conditioned view. So where is this 'bias' you are saying is 'my mantra; my subjective view'?

Here is a clue to help you:

"Zen is a finger pointing to the moon, but is not the moon itself"