Intelligent Design or Pure Chance.........

[Magic Fills the Air]

Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us into the philosophical implications. Ross says that, by definition,

Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.

You may also be interested to read Prof Stephen Hawking's new theory with regard to the Big Bang.

The best argument I've ever heard in support of intelligent design went something like this: to say our current existence is mere chance is to suggest that just given enough time and resources a fully functional Boeing 747 will assemble itself and take flight. The point is there has to be a higher power. We may never understand the purpose or meaning of life, nor how mankind came to exist, but it's still worth thinking about.

Both of these statements support Einstein's original proposition that 'God doesn't play dice' - uncertainly is only provisional in science. However, in astrophysics today God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle where we cannot know the position and speed of a particple. There will always be unpredictablity in the universe. I know that Hawking in his most recent publications supports this line of argument. He stated in a recent lecture

'it seems Einstein was doubly wrong when he said, God does not play dice. Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen'.

This lecture can be found at hawking.org.uk

Hawking in his Brief History of Time was sympathetic to the anthropic principle, and he did not dismiss the possibility that God had a hand in the creation of the world. Since that book was published he's changed his reasoning based on new scientific discoveries. In particular, Hawking has emphasised the discovery in 2010 of a planet orbiting a star other than our sun with characterstics similar to our own planet which could support earth-like life. According to Hawking, the law of gravity itself means the universe can spontaeously create something from nothing.

Therefore in his more recent book, The Grand Design, Hawking firmly believes that 'the universe does not need God to create it. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.'

I believe that if God exists at all, 'it' exists only in our own minds.

[2bitnogoodjive]

I believe that if God exists at all, 'it' exists only in our own minds.

To take this line of reasoning one step further, then how can we possibly know that anything at all in reality truly exists and is not just a construct of our mind or imagination?

[Magic Fills the Air]

To take this line of reasoning one step further, then how can we possibly know that anything at all in reality truly exists and is not just a construct of our mind or imagination?

We can see and feel the world around us, and science can prove its existence and explain where it came from. God on the other hand is, to quote John Lennon, a 'concept' that we've made up to help us explain things we don't understand. The material world is an objective reality, God is subjective perception of what we think might exist.

[Mattmc1973]

The best argument I've ever heard in support of intelligent design went something like this: to say our current existence is mere chance is to suggest that just given enough time and resources a fully functional Boeing 747 will assemble itself and take flight. The point is there has to be a higher power. We may never understand the purpose or meaning of life, nor how mankind came to exist, but it's still worth thinking about.

One thing you have to take into account is the sheer time involved in evolution. We're not talking that living creatures came into being, or a 747 "assembled itself", in a couple of thousand years or even a million years. We're talking billions of years. It's hard for us to wrap our brains around that kind of time. That's a loooong time, and a lot of mistakes and dead ends happened along the way. Given that amount of time, could enough randomness happen that eventually something cohesive happens to take place along the way? Sure...because we're talking BILLIONS of years.

[Magic Fills the Air]

One thing you have to take into account is the sheer time involved in evolution. We're not talking that living creatures came into being, or a 747 "assembled itself", in a couple of thousand years or even a million years. We're talking billions of years. It's hard for us to wrap our brains around that kind of time. That's a loooong time, and a lot of mistakes and dead ends happened along the way. Given that amount of time, could enough randomness happen that eventually something cohesive happens to take place along the way? Sure...because we're talking BILLIONS of years.

The 'Infinite Monkey Theorem' supports this line of reasoning. This theory states that if monkeys (which in this theory are used as a metaphor for an abstract device) were given typewriters and hit keys at random over the course of billions of years they would eventually type out The Complete Works of Shakespeare. The universe and life as we know it evolved through this same pattern of randomness.

[Mattmc1973]

The 'Infinite Monkey Theorem' supports this line of reasoning. This theory states that if monkeys (which in this theory are used as a metaphor for an abstract device) were given typewriters and hit keys at random over the course of billions of years they would eventually type out The Complete Works of Shakespeare. The universe and life as we know it evolved through this same pattern of randomness.

Yes, I've heard Ricky Gervais talk about that theory, and his pal Karl Pilkington is unable wrap his brain around it, saying something like "no monkey has ever had anything published."

[BIGDAN]

The 'Infinite Monkey Theorem' supports this line of reasoning. This theory states that if monkeys (which in this theory are used as a metaphor for an abstract device) were given typewriters and hit keys at random over the course of billions of years they would eventually type out The Complete Works of Shakespeare. The universe and life as we know it evolved through this same pattern of randomness.

Hi Magic,

If the monkey involved was to do that I think it would be truly amaising but not a sign that God exists, but if the monkey typed it out in Hebrew then that would put the cat amongst the pigeons for sure and I'm not sure you could rule out Divine Intervention, what do you think?

Kind Regards, Danny

[Magic Fills the Air]

Yes, I've heard Ricky Gervais talk about that theory, and his pal Karl Pilkington is unable wrap his brain around it, saying something like "no monkey has ever had anything published."

He looks as though he may have potential!

[SteveAJones]

The 'Infinite Monkey Theorem' supports this line of reasoning. This theory states that if monkeys (which in this theory are used as a metaphor for an abstract device) were given typewriters and hit keys at random over the course of billions of years they would eventually type out The Complete Works of Shakespeare. The universe and life as we know it evolved through this same pattern of randomness.

Preposterous! Think about it.

[Strider]

I'm feeling lousy so I shouldn't even bother jumping into this question...

First off, whenever you get into these type of discussions, they frequently develop into shouting matches. Everybody has already staked out their position and they'll be damned if they are going to be open to another point of view.

And the whole kerfuffle over intelligent design is ironic given that Darwin and most scientists of the time were men of faith, to varying extents. Darwin was not trying to prove there was no God when he was working on the Origin of the Species.

But now he has been trapped in this tug-of-war between the creationists and the atheists, both groups ignoring the nuances of his thoughts and beliefs.

And it is that same divisive dichotomy that dominates just about every social, political, scientific, and religious debate today. You are given two extreme points-of-view to choose from, with no thought given to alternatives. It's either/or with no inbetween.

Take this thread...the question is between intelligent design or pure chance. Well, that's a false choice, because just because you believe in evolution doesn't mean you think it all just happened by accident.

Maybe you believe in the design of Mother Nature. Besides, as someone noted above, natural evolution is not completely random. There are external environmental factors at work...an organism adapts, evolves or dies.

Seen any dinosaurs lately? That's where I don't get the intelligent-design people; the more you look at the various species, the more you come across some odd ducks that don't seem to have much intelligence behind their design: dodo birds, anjin-san.

But I grow weary. Frankly, at this point I'm less interested in how the world began than in where it's headed.

[SteveAJones]

One thing you have to take into account is the sheer time involved in evolution. We're not talking that living creatures came into being, or a 747 "assembled itself", in a couple of thousand years or even a million years. We're talking billions of years. It's hard for us to wrap our brains around that kind of time. That's a loooong time, and a lot of mistakes and dead ends happened along the way. Given that amount of time, could enough randomness happen that eventually something cohesive happens to take place along the way? Sure...because we're talking BILLIONS of years.

I'll explain my point differently. Park a '57 Chevy in your garage. Completely disassemble it. Now, even if granted an infinite amount of time and resources unless it's Christine that car will never reassemble itself and run again. There has to be a higher power involved!

[Texas Melanie]

Yes but could a higher power turn my minivan into a Porsche?

[SteveAJones]

First off, whenever you get into these type of discussions, they frequently develop into shouting matches. Everybody has already staked out their position and they'll be damned if they are going to be open to another point of view.

Perhaps but sometimes people start off just regurgitating what they were taught in school or read online. However, through further discussion and a modicum of critical thought their point of view changes.

[Magic Fills the Air]

Hi Magic,

If the monkey involved was to do that I think it would be truly amaising but not a sign that God exists, but if the monkey typed it out in Hebrew then that would put the cat amongst the pigeons for sure and I'm not sure you could rule out Divine Intervention, what do you think?

Kind Regards, Danny

Hi Danny

The monkey and the typewriter is used as anaology to emphasise how randomness can produce something intelligent without there necessarily being an intelligent omniscient presence driving it.

If you think about it though, evolution did put a group of monkeys together and one of them eventually did write The Complete Works of Shakespeare.

[SteveAJones]

Yes but could a higher power turn my minivan into a Porsche?

You bet your ass! A higher power could even put flames on the sides! You've got it - it takes a higher power to effect such change. Time and resources is not enough. Mind you, we're talking the evolution of automobiles. If you are alluding to the evolution of living beings that is an entirely separate matter altogether. We'd have to get into a discussion on the origin of species, genetic mutation, the soul, and so forth. For the record, I believe Darwin's Theory of Evolution is fundamentally flawed in that it fails to acknowledge despite having been given an infinite amount of time and resources a clam is still a clam and so on.

[SteveAJones]

The monkey and the typewriter is used as anaology to emphasise how randomness can produce something intelligent without there necessarily being an intelligent omniscient presence driving it.

If you think about it though, evolution did put a group of monkeys together and one of them eventually did write The Complete Works of Shakespeare.

Except it doesn't and it didn't! Use your head for more than growing hair. By the way, I ain't never met a dolphin yet who devised an interstate highway system.

[BIGDAN]

Hi Danny

The monkey and the typewriter is used as anaology to emphasise how randomness can produce something intelligent without there necessarily being an intelligent omniscient presence driving it.

If you think about it though, evolution did put a group of monkeys together and one of them eventually did write The Complete Works of Shakespeare.

Hi Magic,

It was just me being me, and I for ONE agree with you.

Kind Regards, Danny

PS, Magic? I do believe a Pig just posted to you, how random is that? Oink, Oink.

[Magic Fills the Air]

Except it doesn't and it didn't! Use your head for more than growing hair. By the way, I ain't never met a dolphin yet who devised an interstate highway system.

If you have to stoop to such personal criticisms then you obviously think you're on the losing side on argument. I like an intelligent deabte, that's all, because I'm an academic. Maybe you think women can't use their brains judging from the amount of soft-porn you post on here.

[silvermedalist]

You bet your ass! A higher power could even put flames on the sides! You've got it - it takes a higher power to effect such change. Time and resources is not enough. Mind you, we're talking the evolution of automobiles. If you are alluding to the evolution of living beings that is an entirely separate matter altogether. We'd have to get into a discussion on the origin of species, genetic mutation, the soul, and so forth. For the record, I believe Darwin's Theory of Evolution is fundamentally flawed in that it fails to acknowledge despite having been given an infinite amount of time and resources a clam is still a clam and so on.

I am with you that too much faith and acceptance is put into DArwin's theory. He could be dead wrong. These type of debates always cause argumentts./ Especially when you have religion involved. And their are more atheists on this board than I have ever seen in an entire community. Strange since Led Zeppelin themselves tend to acknowledge God and Jesus in their music.

[Walesdad]

Yes, I've heard Ricky Gervais talk about that theory, and his pal Karl Pilkington is unable wrap his brain around it, saying something like "no monkey has ever had anything published."

:D

[FireOpal]

And who said that? Richard Dawkins.

No, the Boeing 747 analogy is from Fred Hoyle's famous argument against the probability of life spontaneously assembling itself. Fred Hoyle was an English astronomer and mathematician. He said, "the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way [cellular evolution] is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Dawkins later turned the argument around, and concluded that a designer must then be even more improbable.

Anyway, I agree with Strider that a belief in evolution does not preclude belief in God and vice versa. Most mainstream Christian faiths have no problem with evolution. I went to Catholic schools and we were taught evolution with no apologies or objections.

[Strider]

Except it doesn't and it didn't! Use your head for more than growing hair. By the way, I ain't never met a dolphin yet who devised an interstate highway system.

Didn't stop the military from using dolphins in warfare PRECISELY because of their intelligence.

Conversely, I have yet to see any building as intricate and functional as a bee-hive or an ant-hill.

And Steve, the "hair" crack directed at Magic was beneath you...it's something I would expect from Big Dan or Spidersandsnakes. You're better than that.

[SteveAJones]

If you have to stoop to such personal criticisms then you obviously think you're on the losing side on argument. I like an intelligent deabte, that's all, because I'm an academic. Maybe you think women can't use their brains judging from the amount of soft-porn you post on here.

I don't think I'm on the losing side of the argument at all. I do think the theory you are promoting as fact - that just given enough time monkey's can write screenplays - is preposterous and have stated such.

Soft porn?! I publicly challenge you to find a single image I have posted showing any nudity whatsoever, let alone "soft-porn" overtones. Say what you will about the beautiful women I do post here, I'm sure any one of them could devise an interstate highway system if just given enough time.

[Silver Rider]

No way of proving this one catagorically one way or the other.I've got to admit that I waver between,"When you see some of the appalling things going on in the world,how can there be a God?",to "When you look at all the diversity of life on the planet and all the real beauty all around us,surely it can't be the result of pure chance".Anymore for anymore?

Because the day will come when all the bad, which is the work of the destroyer, will pass away, and only the good will remain.

[SteveAJones]

Didn't stop the military from using dolphins in warfare PRECISELY because of their intelligence.

Conversely, I have yet to see any building as intricate and functional as a bee-hive or an ant-hill.

And Steve, the "hair" crack directed at Magic was beneath you...it's something I would expect from Big Dan or Spidersandsnakes. You're better than that.

First of all, dolphins were used for military purposes on account of their biological sonar, not their intellegence. Secondly, Bee-hives and ant-hills are highly utilitarian systems but they are hardly the equivalent of an interstate highway system, at least not in my humble opinion.

Given Magic prides herself on being an intellectual I feel her vapid promotion of the monkey theory is beneath her (use your head for more than growing hair) as is her desperately wrong characterization of the photography I've shared with the forum.