Intelligent Design Done Right

Chance: c.1300, "something that takes place," from O.Fr. cheance "accident, chance, fortune, luck, situation, the falling of dice" (12c., Mod.Fr. chance), from V.L. cadentia "that which falls out," from neut. pl. of L. cadens, prp. of cadere "to fall" (see case (1)). The word's notions of "opportunity" and "randomness" are equally old in English. The verb meaning "to risk" is from 1859.

Coincide: c.1600, "exact correspondence," from Fr. coincidence, from coincider (see coincide). Meaning "a concurrence of events with no apparent connection" is from 1680s.

Random: "having no definite aim or purpose," 1650s, from at random (1560s), "at great speed" (thus, "carelessly, haphazardly"😉, alteration of M.E. randon "impetuosity, speed" (c.1300), from O.Fr. randon "rush, disorder, force, impetuosity," from randir "to run fast," from Frankish *rant "a running," from P.Gmc. *randa (cf. O.H.G. rennen "to run," O.E. rinnan "to flow, to run"😉. In 1980s college student slang, it began to acquire a sense of "inferior, undesirable." (A 1980 William Safire column describes it as a college slang noun meaning "person who does not belong on our dormitory floor."😉 Random access in ref. to computer memory is recorded from 1953.

Let's make sure we're using the words in a coherent and intelligent fashion, shall we? When we're allowed to make the terms more malleable than they currently are, there is a tendency to lose all meaning. In light of the normative use of the words, i.e., none of them are forces, per se, as much as they represent action that has happened, it becomes clear that they cannot be used to describe how something came to be, but rather they are being used in attempt to describe their relations to anything else. When we look at the physical world, it is overwhelmingly obvious that something/one caused the construction, the building of the same.

Originally posted by vivify
Any outcome resulting in a universe that is highly structured, would be unspeakably loudacris dumb luck, if there's no ID involved.

Nonsense;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

if you look at the fractal patterns, they clearly have structure. Many fractal patterns have INFINITE complexity and structure and yet, just as the universe gets its structure from the application of the laws of physics, these patterns are generated from the application of simple fractal equations. Those simple fractal equations have no intelligence and the iteration just blindly and without intent generates structure with infinite complexity. Fractal patterns have been found throughout nature.
Note that no random element needs to be applied to the fractal equations -so therefore difficulty in predicting the exact structure would not necessarily imply true randomness.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“....It's a philosophy based on science, ...”

that's a contradiction with the meaning you are giving to “philosophy” in this context . One cannot be rationally based on the other.

Please explain why you believe something is so, rather just stating "it can't".
That said, ID looks at science in a philosophical way, making it a scientifiic philosophy. ID and science are close, but not the same.

actually, nobody who has fully understood the science of modern-day cosmology would claim it “happened completely through chance” -science doesn't say it happen by “chance” because there is no particular scientific reason to think that it couldn't have been 'inevitable'.

There's also no scientific way to show that it was inevitable.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Nonsense;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

if you look at the fractal patterns, they clearly have structure. Many fractal patterns have INFINITE complexity and structure and yet, just as the universe gets its structure from the application of the laws of physics, these patterns are generated from the application of simple fractal equ ...[text shortened]... refore difficulty in predicting the exact structure would not necessarily imply true randomness.

Look at what you quoted from me. I said any outcome resulting in a UNIVERSE that is highly structured, is insane, dumb luck. We're not talking about just some patterns here, but an entire universe with galaxies moving together as one in clusters, and even superclusters of whole galaxies, in an orderly fashion through the universe.

Put in that perspective, your I don't think your explanation suffices.

Originally posted by vivify
Because there's a logical difference between randomness and order. Would you believe that 100,000 consecutive die throws resulted in a rolling a six everytime? Of course not; that's because the order of 100,000 consecutive sixes is far too high to believe it's a random string of numbers, all arrived at by coincidence.

Make sense?

And you have hit upon the flaw in your argument. You are claiming the universe is a string of six's. ie you claim that every coincidence that lead to the current state of the universe is special. But you have given no argument as to why it is special. You have not explained why they are all six's. Instead, you are using the fact that the die throwing has already been done, you got a random string of numbers, something like this:
2635146352416354162635165.......
and then concluded that because that is what you got, it must be special, then you worked out the probability of getting the above sequence, found it to be highly improbable, then declared that it was impossible to have got such a sequence by random.

Absolutely not. I clearly said the universe isn't "purely" a random result; that ID definately played a part in the creation of the universe. I never once even implied that nothing random can ever happen; that's just YOU putting words in my mouth.
No, that is me making a logical conclusion from your argument.

Certainly, random things happen; however, the EXTENT of what randomness can create, has logical limitations.
I think you would be surprised by what those limitations actually are. I also think you are ignoring the laws of physics which are quite definitely not random in their results.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Who designed the designers? Who designed the designers designers? Who designed the designers designers designers? And so on................

If our universe can't come about because of 'chance', how did the designers come about?

****BUMP****

If our universe needed a designer for it to exist, how did the designer come about? Who created it?

Originally posted by vivify
I am a firm believer in ID. But this is how ID should be properly aproached:

1) ID need not contradict evolution one bit: evolution could simply have been the mechanism through which life today as we know it was brought about.

2) The "designer" need not be just one entity. In fact, if ID is correct, it is more likely that there were many designers, ...[text shortened]... I do believe that the universe couldn't have happened completely through chance.

I essentially agree, but I do not feel a need for a specific designer or designers for design to self-manifest, emerging from within its own inherent holistic ordering via the process of evolution, but one that is not entirely just based on chance.

My view is that there is a primal consciousness inherent in the whole process and prior to it all, a core of all existence, not an added thing after all the somewhat amazing evolutionary process that has happened. I find this far easier to contemplate than that it all evolved from dead lifeless matter by pure chance.

Originally posted by vivify
Please explain why you believe something is so, rather just stating "it can't".
That said, ID looks at science in a philosophical way, making it a scientifiic philosophy. ID and science are close, but not the same.

[b]actually, nobody who has fully understood the science of modern-day cosmology would claim it “happened completely through chance” - 'inevitable'.

There's also no scientific way to show that it was inevitable.[/b]

“...Please explain why you believe something is so ...”

you said: “...ID is NOT science; it's a philosophy. It's a philosophy BASED on science, ...” (my emphases)

you correctly claim ID is NOT a science -and by definition of science, that means it is not based rationally on evidence. But then you say “... it's a philosophy. It's a philosophy BASED on science...”. If the kind of “ philosophy” you speak of is “ NOT a science” then it is a logical contradiction to then say that it is “ BASED on science” because to say that something is “BASED on science” is to say it is BASED on evidence and reason. But you just said that it is “ NOT a science” which implies it is NOT BASED on evidence and reason -you cannot have it both ways.
The only thing that can be “BASED on science” is science and technology and scientific reasoning.



“...There's ALSO no scientific way to show that it was inevitable. ...”(my emphasis)

That doesn't contradict what I just said: “ALSO” is the operative word here. Therefore my claim that “nobody who has fully understood the science of modern-day cosmology would claim it “happened completely through chance” -science doesn't say it happen by “chance” because there is no particular scientific reason to think that it couldn't have been 'inevitable'. “ still stands.

Originally posted by vivify
Look at what you quoted from me. I said any outcome resulting in a UNIVERSE that is highly structured, is insane, dumb luck. We're not talking about just some patterns here, but an entire universe with galaxies moving together as one in clusters, and even superclusters of whole galaxies, in an orderly fashion through the universe.

Put in that perspective, your I don't think your explanation suffices.

“...We're not talking about just some patterns here, but an entire universe with galaxies moving together as one in clusters, and even superclusters of whole galaxies, in an orderly fashion through the universe. ...”

how is that not a “patten” of a structure/movement?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And you have hit upon the flaw in your argument. You are claiming the universe is a string of six's. ie you claim that every coincidence that lead to the current state of the universe is special. But you have given no argument as to why it is special. You have not explained why they are all six's. Instead, you are using the fact that the die throwing has ...[text shortened]... highly improbable, then declared that it was impossible to have got such a sequence by random.

Where your post falls apart, is in creating a random string of numbers with no order. This misrepresents our universe, because if it indeed had no order like your string of numbers, we couldn't study it, make predictions on it, or understand any part of it even in the least. If our universe was indeed like your random string of numbers, you'd have a point; but since our universe is much more like a string of sixes (having order), your post fails.

Originally posted by vivify
As I already said in the post before this, random things certainly happen; that the designers would exist can also be random. But just like with the internet, or cities all across the world, the fact that existance of a designer may have been due to random chance doesn't change the fact that the designs (like cities or the internet) couldn't be random, but had to exist through ID.

I don't think this idea of possibly random designers has any philosophical merit, but thank you for the polite conversation.

Originally posted by lausey
Why do you consider philosophy and science separately?

Philosophy embodies reason, logic, analysis etc. Philosophy is very strongly tied in with science.

Philosophy was the father of science. Been chucked out on the road for a while. Doesn't feel happy in temples either. Poor old philosophy.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Please explain why you believe something is so ...”

you said: “...ID is NOT science; it's a philosophy. It's a philosophy BASED on science, ...” (my emphases)

you correctly claim ID is NOT a science -and by definition of science, that means it is not based rationally on evidence. But then you say “... it's a philosophy. It's a philosophy ...[text shortened]... y thing that can be “BASED on science” is science and technology and scientific reasoning.

James Cameron's Titanic is based on a true story. Does that make it a true story?



[i]“...There's ALSO no scientific way to show that it was inevitable. ...”(my emphasis)

That doesn't contradict what I just said: “ALSO” is the operative word here. Therefore my claim that “nobody who has fully understood the science of modern-day cosmology would claim it “happened completely through chance” -science doesn't say it happen by “chance” because there is no particular scientific reason to think that it couldn't have been 'inevitable'. “ still stands.[i/]

And my statement that there's also no way to show it was inevitable still stands as well.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...We're not talking about just some patterns here, but an entire universe with galaxies moving together as one in clusters, and even superclusters of whole galaxies, in an orderly fashion through the universe. ...”

how is that not a “patten” of a structure/movement?
You missed the point; being "possible" to happen doesn't make it logical. ...[text shortened]...

I think you missed my point; that just because something is "possible", that doesn't make it logical. While it's "possible" that Mt. Rushmore can be designed by chance, with errosion of the mountain happening in JUST the right places, it's not logical to think this will ever happen.

Originally posted by JS357
I don't think this idea of possibly random designers has any philosophical merit, but thank you for the polite conversation.

Well, the existance of God IS a philosophical topic (See Descartes Meditations).

And you're welcome.