• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Orthogenesis

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The key distinction may be better worded for your sake as life occurring with or without the deliberate involvement of conscious intelligence. I consider my beliefs intelligent design because I believe there was deliberate involvement of conscious intelligence in the process.

This is ok for a belief, and it is what Theists believe. I am also a Theist, but the hypothesis or theory of 'Intelligent Design' proposes that the objective verifiable evidence support the conclusion of ID.

I don't really have a problem with calling the opposing point of view happenstance as any processes you may be talking about developed from elementary forces with no intent and things just happened to work out as they did.

Intent would assume an Intelligence Source as the 'Designer' and Creator. This is a philosophical/Theological question. From a less biased perspective this a question of faith.

Using words like 'happenstance,' the pharse; 'things just happened to work out the way they did,' does not reflect how science considers natural processes nor the events, results and consequences of nature.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
This is ok for a belief, and it is what Theists believe. I am also a Theist, but the hypothesis or theory of 'Intelligent Design' proposes that the objective verifiable evidence support the conclusion of ID.
I agree that the question of ID is outside the domain of science at this time. I am fine with that as I am not a follower of Scientism.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Using words like 'happenstance,' the pharse; 'things just happened to work out the way they did,' does not reflect how science considers natural processes nor the events, results and consequences of nature.
Well, I am going to disagree a little here. In the very ultimate view the materialist is still saying it is just happenstance. I think you are getting at the processes and mechanisms involved that became in-place that supported physical life but in the very most ultimate sense how did these processes and mechanisms form? Ultimately it is then just layers of happenstance in the materialist's argument.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I agree that the question of ID is outside the domain of science at this time. I am fine with that as I am not a follower of Scientism.

It depends on how you define 'Scientism.' How do you define the term?
I am a Theist and a scientist. From the scientific perspective I believe Methodological Naturalism is the best way to understand the Objective verifiable evidence for the nature of our physical reality. As a Theist I believe God's attributes are reflected in the natural processes, and the Natural Laws that science understands and describes.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
It depends on how you define 'Scientism.' How do you define the term?
From Wikipedia
Scientism
Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning-to the exclusion of other viewpoints.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The key distinction may be better worded for your sake as life occurring with or without the deliberate involvement of conscious intelligence. I consider my beliefs intelligent design because I believe there was deliberate involvement of conscious intelligence in the process.

I don't really have a problem with calling the opposing point of view happenstance as any processes you may be talking about developed from elementary forces with no intent and things just happened to work out as they did.
The problem is, there is no reason to postulate a conscious intelligence behind it; it's unnecessary. Everything is understandable by way of known, understood mechanisms. Why bring in some intentional, magical intervention?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
The problem is, there is no reason to postulate a conscious intelligence behind it; it's unnecessary. Everything is understandable by way of known, understood mechanisms. Why bring in some intentional, magical intervention?
For a follower of scientism what you say is correct and is about all that can be said on the subject.. (I don't mean to imply a derogatory meaning to 'scientism' - see post #65)

For one, the mind-boggling complexity of something like DNA seems to me to be an unlikely production from only the forces currently accepted by science. I understand this is in no way an ironclad argument because it COULD have happened through just the forces accepted by current science.

For two, I am not a follower of scientism and respect and learn from those who I believe to be advanced and inspired souls that tell us of the advent of physical life on earth and that it involved conscious intelligent fostering.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
From Wikipedia
Scientism
Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning-to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

Please note the bold . . .

I actually consider 'Scientism' to be an outdated word and not specific enough. The above bold leaves questions as to what is meant by 'other viewpoints.' Does it refer to other philosophies and theologies that Methodological Naturalism cannot address nor falsify, or does it address other philosophies and theologies that oppose Methodological Naturalism?

Philosophical Naturalist is a better more specific term for materialists who believe that Natural physical world is all that exists based on the objective evidence. This requires a philosophical assumption and is not based on Methodological Naturalism, which limits the knowledge of science to that which may be falsified by scientific methods with objective verifiable evidence. This is the foundation philosophy that governs all of science today.

Can you distinguish and understand the difference between Methodological Naturalism, and Philosophical or Ontological Naturalism?
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
The foolish notion of 'chance' mutations determining the outcome of evolutionary processes is not science,

I think we have some common ground here then. 'chance' seemed a lot more plausible when the theory was conceived 150 years ago, but not with what we know about DNA and information systems in general today
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I think we have some common ground here then. 'chance' seemed a lot more plausible when the theory was conceived 150 years ago, but not with what we know about DNA and information systems in general today

Regardless of where we go with the discussion we have to deal with science in today's terms.It is primarily fundamentalist Creationists like at ICR that describe natural DNA as an information system like computers. Scientist are researching artificial DNA created as an information storage system
 
Last edited:

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Please explain how DNA is hierarchal, or an information system. It's just a string of code, a simple polymer.
Why would you think it particularly unlikely to assemble spontaneously?
Why do you keep bringing up random chance? How many times have we explained to you that no-one's proposing random chance as an explanation?
And what is this creative intelligence? Can you link me to a discussion off it? By what mechanism does it act?
You say it's empirically proven. Do you have links to the tests?
And what the heck's a 'hierarchical digital information system'?
There you go again.
Evolution is guided, changes are selected.

DNA is literal digital code that is hierarchical just like the code behind this forum.

In this code there are parameters which control attributes such as color and size that may be adapted to better suit various circumstances.


we might even 'randomly mutate' these parameters and let the best combos be 'naturally selected' But you understand that tweaking these parameters can never write a a new program, or the software application that supports this functionality, far less the operating system in turn supporting that

i.e. this leap from micro to macro adaptation is not just ' unlikely' to happen by this method- it's inherently impossible


Again this is not just a quirk of human programming, it is inherent to any hierarchical information system. And physics is another good example. You cannot author the mechanisms of quantum mechanics using classical physics.


Why do you keep bringing up random chance? How many times have we explained to you that no-one's proposing random chance as an explanation?
"changes are selected"

what drives these changes according to the theory?

chance or 'random' mutations if you prefer.

 
Last edited:

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Regardless of where we go with the discussion we have to deal with science in today's terms.

Agree, Darwin had no way of knowing about DNA or any other sort of information system. I think the theory was a perfectly logical & elegant extension of the unguided/classical/ Victorian age model of physics. Science has moved on
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
DNA is literal digital code that is hierarchical just like the code behind this forum.

No it is not. DNA is not constructed as binary code. Human developed information systems and associated hierachical digital code do not have self replicating properties nor are they capable of dealing with replicating errors in DNA

we might even 'randomly mutate' these parameters and let the best combos be 'naturally selected'

Very foolish notion,

what drives these changes according to the theory?

Changes in the environment or opportunities to adapt to a new environment. Successful reproduction and the continuation of life is probably the main driving force behind evolution

chance or 'random' mutations if you prefer.

Not science.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Agree, Darwin had no way of knowing about DNA or any other sort of information system. I think the theory was a perfectly logical & elegant extension of the unguided/classical/ Victorian age model of physics. Science has moved on.

Science has moved on from older views, Intelligent Design remain a philosophical/theological concept that cannot be empirically falsified in science.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
For one, the mind-boggling complexity of something like DNA seems to me to be an unlikely production from only the forces currently accepted by science. I understand this is in no way an ironclad argument because it COULD have happened through just the forces accepted by current science.
But DNA -- or RNA, if we're talking about the original molecule -- is not mind-bogglingly complex, it's just mind-bogglingly long. I wouldn't call a mile long chain more complex than a foot long chain.
For two, I am not a follower of scientism and respect and learn from those who I believe to be advanced and inspired souls that tell us of the advent of physical life on earth and that it involved conscious intelligent fostering.
So your opinion is a blind faith in the revelations of "advanced, inspired souls." Ie: it's a priori, un-reviewed, untested and unfalsifiable. Actual evidence cannot change it.
Question: How did you choose which revelations to follow?
DNA is literal digital code that is hierarchical just like the code behind this forum.
Is it the molecule that's hierarchical, or the systems it codes for?
we might even 'randomly mutate' these parameters and let the best combos be 'naturally selected' But you understand that tweaking these parameters can never write a a new program, or the software application that supports this functionality, far less the operating system in turn supporting that

i.e. this leap from micro to macro adaptation is not just ' unlikely' to happen by this method- it's inherently impossible
I don't understand why it's impossible. You have four letters and the arrangements are constantly being tweaked. What keeps it from becoming a new program by the same mechanisms that created the current one? How do small changes know when to stop, so as to avoid accumulating into a big change?
Again this is not just a quirk of human programming, it is inherent to any hierarchical information system. And physics is another good example. You cannot author the mechanisms of quantum mechanics using classical physics.
Author?

Organism's didn't pop into existence like the laws of physics, and they're constantly changing.
what drives these changes according to the theory?

chance or 'random' mutations if you prefer.
STOP IT, already!
You know perfectly well what drives these changes. You learned the mechanisms in high school, and every subsequent biology course you've taken assumes them.
Mechanisms: the processes of evolution
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Science has moved on from older views, Intelligent Design remain a philosophical/theological concept that cannot be empirically falsified in science.

That's not exactly what Hoyle said about the Big Bang, but very close

(Wiki)'

He (Hoyle) found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
But DNA -- or RNA, if we're talking about the original molecule -- is not mind-bogglingly complex, it's just mind-bogglingly long. I wouldn't call a mile long chain more complex than a foot long chain.
So your opinion is a blind faith in the revelations of "advanced, inspired souls." Ie: it's a priori, un-reviewed, untested and unfalsifiable. Actual evidence cannot change it.
Question: How did you choose which revelations to follow?
Is it the molecule that's hierarchical, or the systems it codes for?
I don't understand why it's impossible. You have four letters and the arrangements are constantly being tweaked. What keeps it from becoming a new program by the same mechanisms that created the current one? How do small changes know when to stop, so as to avoid accumulating into a big change?

what stops you re-writing this forum code using the text attribute options?

what stops classical physics from creating quantum mechanics?

You can't use the mechanics of a system to create that very system which underwrites it, it's an insurmountable logical paradox

STOP IT, already!
You know perfectly well what drives these changes. You learned the mechanisms in high school, and every subsequent biology course you've taken assumes them.
Mechanisms: the processes of evolution


We have a good idea yes, but it's not pure blind accidents like ToE proposes

following your link on Mutations

"A change in a DNA sequence, usually occurring because of errors in replication or repair....."

if you don't think these changes are accidents either, then we can stop arguing about it!
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
That's not exactly what Hoyle said about the Big Bang, but very close

(Wiki)'

He (Hoyle) found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"

Nothing I have proposed remotely resembles Fred Hoyle's views.

I consider Fred Hoyle a controversial outlier and not representative of contemporary physicists and cosmologists, especialy His statements, like above, concerning contemporary theories concerning the origins of the universe.

The question remains: Can you provide an empirical hypothesis 'Intelligent Design' that can be falsified by the objective verifiable evidence by scientific methods?

'Intelligent Design' remains a philosophical/theological concept that cannot be empirically falsified in science?
 
Last edited:

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
But DNA -- or RNA, if we're talking about the original molecule -- is not mind-bogglingly complex, it's just mind-bogglingly long. I wouldn't call a mile long chain more complex than a foot long chain.
If you don't consider advanced life with all the complexity of all the different processes forming from the DNA of a sperm and egg and their origination mind-boggling, then you have a mind way beyond mine.
So your opinion is a blind faith in the revelations of "advanced, inspired souls." Ie: it's a priori, un-reviewed, untested and unfalsifiable.
No, I do not believe in blind faith. I believe in the worldview that makes the most sense when all things are considered.
Actual evidence cannot change it.
I am also a follower of science. My beliefs contradict nothing proven by science. I have come to believe science is quite limited though in its reach at this time.
Question: How did you choose which revelations to follow?
After consideration of all the worldviews out there I find the one founded in Vedic knowledge to be the highest reach of mankind's understanding. And the numerous western spiritual teachers of the post-Abrahamic era are also echoing the Vedas. And my study of the paranormal has showed me the superiority of eastern/New Age thinking over materialist science. So all these many things I have found dovetail to form my worldview.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
If you don't consider advanced life with all the complexity of all the different processes forming from the DNA of a sperm and egg and their origination mind-boggling, then you have a mind way beyond mine.

It is not mind boggling at all and explained very well in detail by science.

You still have not responded to my post considering your view of 'Scientism?' How do you define 'Scientism?'

By the way science does not 'prove anything.' Do you accept and understand the empirical science of falsification of theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence.

Can you acknowledge and understand the difference between Methodological Naturalism, and Philosophical or Ontological Naturalism (scientism?).
 
Top