(2020-08-27, 10:44 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Well, clearly we need to see a creator/designer model and see if it’s falsifiable then?
Not being falsifiable doesn't make it untrue - just outside of the realms of what science can deal with. Science can neither prove nor disprove a creator. With regards randomness, it may one day be able to show that it is theoretically possible, but even that won't prove that it is necessarily true.
(2020-08-28, 11:22 PM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]Not being falsifiable doesn't make it untrue - just outside of the realms of what science can deal with. Science can neither prove nor disprove a creator. With regards randomness, it may one day be able to show that it is theoretically possible, but even that won't prove that it is necessarily true.
It is an interesting question - interventions in our world's evolution might not be something we can repeat with any ease.
Courts don't ask for falsifiable theories when trying to decide on which version of events is the truth. Neither do journalists.
So if Intelligent Design is not something that is happening continuously, but rather only at certain points, is it something we can put into a model and see how the model holds up?
All that said, I don't think Intelligent Design necessarily shows a creator of our world's biological life, let alone a Creator. It does seem to suggest interventions by some entities, possibly immaterial and possibly aliens of a more "nuts & bolts" kind.
(2020-08-29, 05:26 AM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]All that said, I don't think Intelligent Design necessarily shows a creator of our world's biological life, let alone a Creator. It does seem to suggest interventions by some entities, possibly immaterial and possibly aliens of a more "nuts & bolts" kind.
How does an immaterial entity fail to qualify as a creator? I'm not supporting nor opposing these things, just not sure of the distinction (other than the use of upper-case characters).
(2020-08-29, 05:26 PM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]How does an immaterial entity fail to qualify as a creator? I'm not supporting nor opposing these things, just not sure of the distinction (other than the use of upper-case characters).
I just mean the immaterial entities would be shown to have influenced life's progress through evolutionary stages, not actually created life on Earth.
(2020-08-27, 10:44 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Well, clearly we need to see a creator/designer model and see if it’s falsifiable then?
Mental processes enabled living things to design their own phenotype and genomes.
(2020-08-29, 05:26 PM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]How does an immaterial entity fail to qualify as a creator? I'm not supporting nor opposing these things, just not sure of the distinction (other than the use of upper-case characters).
It would depend on your definition of an immaterial entity. If you saw your grandmothers ghost you would probably not refer to her a/the creator
(2020-09-02, 06:29 PM)Larry Wrote: [ -> ]It would depend on your definition of an immaterial entity. If you saw your grandmothers ghost you would probably not refer to her a/the creator
That's a fair comment. Though in the original context it was Sciborg's suggestion of some intervention in the development of life on Earth. That is to say, it was a reference to an entity/some entities involved or participating in some way in directing that process.
Yeah I would say ID is quite interesting, though I admittedly don't follow it too closely since I am already leaning toward the idea of spirits intervening in "material processes"...of course the word "spirit" itself invites questions.
The motivation that drives a good bit of the ID scholarship/funding seems to be trying to show there's a God by which they mean a conscious Ground of All Being. That I think is very very flawed thinking on their part b/c what ID purports to show is a weighting of mutation dice, and if nothing else [probability manipulation] is exactly what modern day magicians claim to do via some internal power and/or working with spirits.
Arguably even fine-tuning isn't absolute proof of big-G God but at the least you're talking about the fundamental structures of the Universe for some of that...
(2020-09-02, 08:03 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah I would say ID is quite interesting, though I admittedly don't follow it too closely since I am already leaning toward the idea of spirits intervening in "material processes"...of course the word "spirit" itself invites questions.
The motivation that drives a good bit of the ID scholarship/funding seems to be trying to show there's a God by which they mean a conscious Ground of All Being. That I think is very very flawed thinking on their part b/c what ID purports to show is a weighting of mutation dice, and if nothing else [probability manipulation] is exactly what modern day magicians claim to do via some internal power and/or working with spirits.
Arguably even fine-tuning isn't absolute proof of big-G God but at the least you're talking about the fundamental structures of the Universe for some of that...
There is also a corollary, in that the mainstream scientific lines of thought tend to lead to an extreme in not really having an openness towards acknowledging some role for a conscious creative force, even within ourselves. It seems an unfortunate consequence of taking that path is an aloofness towards such things as the warmth of human affection, discarding big-g God has led to rejecting the obvious. It's a kind of fragmented, broken pattern of thought which reduces the ability to think clearly. Which is ironic really.
(2020-09-02, 08:03 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah I would say ID is quite interesting, though I admittedly don't follow it too closely since I am already leaning toward the idea of spirits intervening in "material processes"...of course the word "spirit" itself invites questions.
The motivation that drives a good bit of the ID scholarship/funding seems to be trying to show there's a God by which they mean a conscious Ground of All Being. That I think is very very flawed thinking on their part b/c what ID purports to show is a weighting of mutation dice, and if nothing else [probability manipulation] is exactly what modern day magicians claim to do via some internal power and/or working with spirits.
Arguably even fine-tuning isn't absolute proof of big-G God but at the least you're talking about the fundamental structures of the Universe for some of that...
I would be more comfortable with "they mean a conscious Ground of All Being" which is open and non specific as opposed to what I see as a whack a mole jesus that lurks in the DI ID agenda.