Intelligent Design, on SBS TV tonight

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by Argonavis

well, not too many Buddhists have started any wars recently......

John Dobson believes that the Universe is a Veil hiding a more fundamantal reality. I can accept this, we have a facinating and astounding Universe governed by physical laws, which may (or may not) be just a veil. This accepts the physical reality of the Univese that we inhabit and perceive. But when some of the more fundamentalist members of the abrahamic religions try to tear down my veil, and put their own in its place...not happy.

Interestingly, I understand that the Islamic world does not have a problem with evolution.

..what makes astronomy so facinating and astounding is the contemplation of those vast cold dark spaces, overwhelmingly indifferent, the universe doesn't care what we believe...

Don't you think we are the Universe contemplating itself? It would be tragic if we were the only planet with sentient life. When I say sentient life it is not only human as other species have understanding we don't have. I find it difficult to believe that our planet is the only place with 'life'. The Universe is so vast that it's size is incomprehensible to any puny human mind.
Science allows us to to crawl out of the primordial slime of ignorance and have a better understanding of how the Universe works. So far it has been the best way to understand reality.
Superstition was the method to 'explain' how things worked in the past. All things not understood were put into the realm of mythical beings that somehow controlled everything.

The main failing of ID as a scientific theory is that it puts all the unknowns back into the lap of a mythical designer. Another mythical being based on superstition.
Religion is not about the physical, it is about our inner life. You cannot measure love,hate,loyalty,wisdom,art,contem plation etc on a balance. Religion has a valid place as belief system so we all get on better with each other. We as a group set rules about living so we are all better off. It is when unscrupulous men misuse power for their own advantage that it all goes off the rails.

You only have to look through history to see the hypocracy and downright evil perpetrated by some humans in the name of their imaginary friend. The major reason they could get away with it was because the populace were kept or were ignorant.

This 'modern' version of creationism (ID) is exactly that, simple answers to complex questions to not scare the populace or keep them unquestioning. An uninformed populace is far more compliant than an educated one. Hence the purges (killing) of the intelligentsia in various regimes even in recent times.

There are only two 'sins' in my belief system, hypocracy and ignorance. ID fills both bills.

Sorry if I have offended anyone. But this is the best model of the Universe I have at the moment with my limited abilities. I wish I could be as certain as some others who have 'all' the answers.

Bert

[fringe_dweller]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Don't you think we are the Universe contemplating itself?
Bert

Yes Bert, I too believe that to be a possibilty - we are just a manifestation of the universe's desire to be loved and appreciated - a mirror possibly - it is lonely?, if there was no sentient beings who would contemplate the universe? I dont think the universe is just dumb dirt and gas, but its not a ancient bearded male on a cloud either.
I watched the show (thanks Mike) - I found it interesting that they didnt look at the australian angle of this debate - and that it came so long after the fact? shows how powerful they are?, even sbs treads carefully!
I agree with the scientist on the show when he said, that there is something very dark and orwellian about it all.
I have read nearly all the BAUT forum threads on this subject and they just ripped this BS to pieces, they have said it all IMO.

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

Bert, You take the prize in my book for most intelligently designed post in this thread!
Everyone, If you think you understand, you need to go away and think about it some more.

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Don't you think we are the Universe contemplating itself?
Bert

Si?

Don't know about you Bert, but I perceive myself as separate from the rest of the physical universe. Unless you are a Jungian, I assume that you would, too.

In fact, I find the universe surprisingly indifferent to me. If I stand in front of a speeding train, no matter how much I will it, I know it will run me over. I don't think the universe was created just for my contemplation, or is some other sense merges me into some kind of collective consciousness. Humans seem to be just like any other organism on this planet - busy exploiting their environment to allow them to survive and reproduce. I can't see any unequivocal evidence of a masterplan or master designer.

From what I can see we are all the remnants and wreckage from a rather large explosive event....some time ago.

I am going to go away now before the moderators come along and beat me up for being off topic.

[[1ponders] (Paul)]

There is a novel you guys might enjoy reading if you can find it. It's called "The Starmaker" by Olaf Stapleton. You'll find very similar philosophies bound up in a great short novel.

[avandonk]

Jung and all the others were all as correct as they were all wrong! You cannot understand by mere simple contemplation. All that matters is more experiments more results and more experiments .....

There was a famous Indian (the subcontinent ie India) who taught that all life was an illusion. Apon being seen running from a hungry tiger and asked why he ran when the tiger was only an illusion, his answer was he had something else he had just thought of so he had to attend to it.

These arguements become circular once you analyse them.

The fact is we have to face reality every day. Try telling a mother in the third world that her children dying of starvation is only an illusion.

Argonavis you are correct the Universe has no mind. I am afraid at the moment we are it. Sad is it not.

Bert

[fringe_dweller]

Thanks Paul! upon reading back I thought I was sounding like a sci-fi or star trek series episode plot/premise there out damn spock!
Argonavis, Bert didnt say the universe was created for our contemplation at all, he said we (and any other sentient beings out there) may possibly be the result of the universe wanting to/or contemplating itself.

Ok someone define energy for me - isnt that really what the universe is at its broken down level? wether inert at rest or a whizzingly fast photon

[[1ponders] (Paul)]

This is slightly off topic but here's the chance to look at another emerging point of view. If you come across the DVD "What the Bleep Do We Know" it give an interesting look at how quantum physics fits in with this arguement of religion and science and how we fit into it "ALL"







ps if you do watch it, make sure you watch the credits. It introduces all the players in the discussion.

[stinky]

The ID's are indeed sad - they try to create an explanation for everything based on the supernatural. Accept the supernatural and everything falls into place.

Personally I find that an incredibly arrogant act - to define a supernatural 'governor'. They've got as much chance of explaining the universe as a cockroach has of understanding mankind.

[[1ponders] (Paul)]

While we may not accept the ID point of view stinky, everyone is still entitled to their own point of view.

Please keep your discussion less aggressive. This particular religious discussion has only been accepted as long as it remains on a "friendly" basis.

Thanks

[mickoking]

[quote='[1ponders]']This is slightly off topic but here's the chance to look at another emerging point of view. If you come across the DVD "What the Bleep Do We Know" it give an interesting look at how quantum physics fits in with this arguement of religion and science and how we fit into it "ALL"

I believe some religion and science converges. Buddhism has an interesting concept called emptiness who's conclusions are strikingly similar to quantum physics. The Dalai lama has got the right idea. He says one must not be dogmatic about things, if science dissproves something that the holy scriptures say you must accept what science says.

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by [1ponders]

This is slightly off topic but here's the chance to look at another emerging point of view. If you come across the DVD "What the Bleep Do We Know" it give an interesting look at how quantum physics fits in with this arguement of religion and science and how we fit into it "ALL"







ps if you do watch it, make sure you watch the credits. It introduces all the players in the discussion.

I think it was Einstein that said 'anyone who understands Quantum Mechanics and is not afraid, should be very afraid'.
Our real world was really built upon fleeting particles that were really indeterminate waves that behaved most strangely, and yet reality was there? This was a problem he had.
I had an almost religious experience when I studied this. I very quickly realized the Universe is a strange place indeed. Nothing is real yet it is! Too many conundrums.
No I will not stand in front of a train. Quantum effects do not work at our level of reality. I am not an electron!

Bert

[[1ponders] (Paul)]

It sounds like you would enjoy this DVD Bert. I viewed it with an open mind and left the same way, but it did give some interesting insights.

[avandonk]

[quote=mickoking]

Originally Posted by [1ponders]

This is slightly off topic but here's the chance to look at another emerging point of view. If you come across the DVD "What the Bleep Do We Know" it give an interesting look at how quantum physics fits in with this arguement of religion and science and how we fit into it "ALL"

I believe some religion and science converges. Buddhism has an interesting concept called emptiness who's conclusions are strikingly similar to quantum physics. The Dalai lama has got the right idea. He says one must not be dogmatic about things, if science dissproves something that the holy scriptures say you must accept what science says.

Science and Religion should never be in conflict. They cover different areas.
Where there is overlap, the better informed on both sides largely agree. We don't know but that is interesting.

Bert

[stinky]

Originally Posted by [1ponders]

While we may not accept the ID point of view stinky, everyone is still entitled to their own point of view.

Please keep your discussion less aggressive. This particular religious discussion has only been accepted as long as it remains on a "friendly" basis.

Thanks

Thanks - and I offered my point of view - but perhaps IMO should have been in the first sentence.

I will explain in a less concise manner - the IDers like to explain there is a perfect explanation for evolution when one accepts the involvement of a great designer. Perhaps cockroaches say grace when we drop crumbs - he he

But on a serious note I see no justification in discussing the scientific merits of ID when it is based on superstition.

[gaa_ian (Ian)]

I consider myself a Christian .... BUT I do not accept ID.
I have met an spoken with some of the Key people promoting this Psudo Science ID, they scare me
I for one am very happy we survived the Dark ages & the inquesitions.
Pure science does not (IMHO) have all the answers for a happy and fulfilling life, but that is no reason to dress Faith up as Science.
Fortunatley moderate chuches EG: Uniting Church, are rejecting the teaching of this revisionism !

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by gaa_ian

I consider myself a Christian .... BUT I do not accept ID.
I have met an spoken with some of the Key people promoting this Psudo Science ID, they scare me
I for one am very happy we survived the Dark ages & the inquesitions.
Pure science does not (IMHO) have all the answers for a happy and fulfilling life, but that is no reason to dress Faith up as Science.
Fortunatley moderate chuches EG: Uniting Church, are rejecting the teaching of this revisionism !

Science is not about refuting the existance of God. This is a problem these people have(the Religious Right in USA). What God is, is beyond science. I for one am a rabid agnostic at best and an atheist at worst. But I will defend your beliefs and the right to your beliefs. Just as you should respect mine. If I am denigrated for not believing in God, it is just as bad if you were denigrated by anyone else for being a believer.

Bert

[shredder]

A few years back, back in my Uni day I studies ID as part of a course. Not actually teaching ID, but more why were they trying to teach ID (in the US it started out with Evolution vs Creationism). And what it really came down to was Christian Fundamentalist Religious groups felt that they were loosing the battle to teach fundamentalist Christian Beliefs to children, once they entered school they were taught that everything started with the anonymous "Big Bang" and not the "Word of God" so to speak (varies slightly depending on religion, but you get the idea). So to counter this they decided to create ID, based on Creationism, and get a few so called scientists to back it up (same ones who said Smoking is safe, and Asbestos, and Nuclear Power, Global Warming, etc etc, seems to be a lot of them around if you have the money). There was no scientific principal behind it, but they figured "Evolution" is a theory and that gets taught as Science, so why cant we get on the same boat. And so it started.

I didn't see the show, or what the scientists are now saying about it, (and I am Christian for those who are interested, and quite religious), but I wouldn't put any of my children into a class teaching ID as science. There is a hidden agenda with it, and like all hiden agendas a nasty one at that. There was no merit to it when I studied it before (back then it was Evolution vs Creationism, with creationism backed up supposedly by ID) and I can't see why it would change now. There are better ways to incorporate your God into your life, and the creation of the Universe (or alternate Universes, depending on what you believe) than forcing this kind of thing on our Children.

Michael

[mickoking]

Sadly I think fundamentalist religion is on the rise. It is this fundamentlist dogma that corrupts the essence of the particular faith in question. Sadly the spread of concept's like ID is not helped by a poor understanding of science amongst the general population. I once worked with a lady who had studied chemistry at University, she believed that the stars shone because they reflected the light of the Sun I also know people here and now who believe in ID and they are otherwise quite intelligent people. Don't get me wrong, people are free to believe in anything they want. But if you are alarmed by concepts like ID and it's acceptance amongst the general community I would question 'what are the science community and educators doing about it'?

[Volans]

Originally Posted by mickoking

But if you are alarmed by concepts like ID and it's acceptance amongst the general community I would question 'what are the science community and educators doing about it'?

As an astronomy educator, I am doing my best to foster an interest in astronomy in the school kids that come through the planetarium but there is a problem. Apathy. Not in the children but in the teachers and it is not just apathy towards astronomy but it can be seen in broader contexts.

The biologist on the Dateline ID segment (the quitely spoken chap with exceptionally cool "mad professor" wild hair) said that science is hard to understand and it is far easier to comprehend a "God did it" attitude. I'll go along with that and I think that it is this type of, dumbing down/go with the easy option, that has led to the apathy that I am seeing.

I will go up to a teacher and ask if there is anything they would like me to concentrate on during their school show. The equipment we have at the planetarium is sophisticated and can graphically explain odd astronomical concepts quite well. Nine and a half times out of ten I will get the following reply: "Oh, whatever you do will be fine!" (usually followed by an inane and vacuous giggle).

Have any of you ever read a science article in the paper and picked up on a really bad mistake? A mistake that should not have been made if the journo had bothered to do some basic research? I have, and each time I do, it makes me wonder about all the other articles in the paper. Apply this to the primary school teachers. If the "yeah whatever" attitude applies to astronomy then does it apply to other subjects?

So as an educator what can I do? Bypass the teachers for the hour or so that the kids are in the planetarium and try to share my enthusiasm for astronomy.

Just to set the record straight, there are some teachers who do try and you can tell they have succeeded. When an eight year old asks you where Mariner 2 went you know his teacher has been doing a good job!

Peter.