Comments on: Intelligent design vs. Monotheism

By: shlog

shlog — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:50:53 +0000

Jeremy when all the “padding” is removed from your comment it simply reads:

It is more logical to attribute the existence of the universe to intelligent design since it is infinitely complex. The probability that random chance is responsible for the universe is much lower.

No argument and no logic, but simply your personal belief as to where the universe and its inhabitants originate. Making a statement regarding the probability of a creator is a futile exercise as there is no evidence with which this can be done.

Stating that your “God” is the reason behind the current state of the universe does not explain anything. In fact, as my original post argues, it only complicates matters. God creating evolution provides an answer that begs to have the same question asked once more: where does it come from?

The superfluous addition of a creator (unbacked by evidence) is downright hypocritical in the search for the truth.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 05:16:54 +0000

I’d just like to point out that the theory of evolution is not inherently contrary to intelligent design. Contemplate this… Whatever caused us and all other matter in the universe to be here had to create it somehow. Otherwise the laws of thermodynamics would be violated. Something that creates is called a creator. One of the necessary aspects of godhood is creation. Another two are omnipotence and onmiscience. Assuming that the universe was created, both of those powers would be necessary. So since this entity, being, or phenomenon exibits the traits of God, we refer to it as God. It is more logical to attribute the existence of the universe to intelligent design since it is infinitely complex. The probability that random chance is responsible for the universe is much lower. But that doesn’t mean that evolution isn’t true. God simply could have created evolution. I’ve heard so many “Christians” put limits on God and say that evolution can’t be true, then in the same breath say God can do anything. God could have simply instituted evolution… an autonomous process put in place to follow physical laws like clockwork. All God had to do was design the clock and start it ticking. Its the same with the planets. God doesn’t have to hold the planets to make them stay in orbit. There are physical laws put in place to govern that.

By: heavystarch

heavystarch — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 16:03:42 +0000

thanks shlog. From what I gleamed from the wiki it basically states there is a beginning point with a single causality – nothing before it (God started it all).

By: shlog

shlog — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 05:12:52 +0000

I’m guessing that Jeremy is referring to the argument outlined at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

I haven’t had a chance to read it but thought I’d post it anyway.

By: heavystarch

heavystarch — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:01:35 +0000

I want to hear your uncaused cause theory too.

By: shlog

shlog — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 23:59:31 +0000

Jeremy could you please expand on your previous comment? I’m interested in hearing new explanations.

By: Jeremy Hulsey

Jeremy Hulsey — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:02:08 +0000

Have you considered the third option of an uncaused cause? It seems more logical to me that it takes something eternal to create something temporal.

By: shlog

shlog — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:27:30 +0000

While I have read about the other forms of intelligent design (ID) I decided to group them for the sake of succinctness given the nature of the Shlog. Extra terrestrial intelligence should be considered as an extension of Earthbound life forms that require their own creator (under ID that is) in the same manner as humans would if they managed to create life themselves. The multiple gods can be considered as a whole group and the group treated in the same manner as the single creator I refer to in the post. In response to the examples you cited: a) The emergence of life and the existence of life as we know it must be treated differently with respect to chance. Emergence only requires the actualisation of a single event (improbable, however with such a vast sample space—the universe—it is not unlikely that the expected value of the number of occurrences would be sufficiently large enough for at least one emergent life form to survive and evolve). Existence of life forms as we know it can then—given that emergence has occurred—be explained through natural selection. b) This entity or unbalanced force does not constitute ID but rather only the initial emergence as explained in (a). Once again any "force" would not necessarily need to be unbalanced given the large sample space. An interesting view on this is the anthropic principle. I won't elaborate though as it ventures too far from this topic. Given my educational background I'm inclined to explain the improbable event with sufficiently large expected value of occurrences in layman's terms through an analogy. Let our improbable event—the emergence of life—be likened to removing four cards from a deck of 52 without replacement and the resulting cards be the aces (probability 1 in 52C4 or 1 in 270725). You would not expect this to occur, however if repeated 1,000,000 times (representative of the large sample space that is the universe) the probability of at least one occurrence is 1-(270724 ÷ 270725)^1,000,000 = 97.51%. The expected number of occurrences is 3.69.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 03:49:18 +0000

I’m not quite certain you have done your research on this topic. There are many categories of the “intelligent design argument” some are monotheistic; others involve extra terrestial intelligence or mutiple gods. In the field of creationism we have an even broader range of groups and sub-groups. With a wide variety of creation myths. Most of these are very entertaining.
Even with concepts such as the vaguely generalized statement concerning ‘random chance’ vs ‘natural selection’ you run into a plethora of problems.
For example:
a) Before the advent of life on earth the actual possibility of life existed but, even those primordial requirements, if meet, do not guarantee the emergence of life forms. It is by random chance then that life exists at all.
b) If a outside, unbalanced force or entity interceded in the primordial earth environment and created or at least guaranteed the existence of life on earth. In this instance evolution is excluded in a creational argument. Also you now have elements of intelligent design and random chance as well.