|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is ID a right wing conspiracy? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art Welcome kcfs.org - BlueHost.com I keep hearing about how the Wedge document is evidence that IDers are political, but evolutionists fail to recognize that the Wedge document is simply responding to evolutionists and materialists existing social/political/quasi-religious status. The insistence that we are purely material, and by material, I mean an outdated concept of "material", a Newtonian version already outdated by QM, is a fundamentally religious, social, and political claim of materialists, and the Wedge document is quite right to assert this is a false application of science.
We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). I see where materialists in their paradigm see this as a politicized religious attack, but they need to take a step back and consider which side has used the courts to silence it's critics, evolutionists. The history of evolutionism has indeed been social, political, religious, and thus necessitated this type of correction. Imo though, the real issue is that materialists view of what constitutes "material" is outdated. There really is no more need to bash materialist thinking since quantum physics principles already have turned that world upside down. That's how I see it. But either way, to insist that we are only physical, according to outdated concepts of "physical", simply because we lacked the technology to delve into quantum physics and spiritual realms, imo, is a major error of materialists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The breakdown here is the assumption that physical existence, and design are functionally self-existent.
Btw, just as an aside not germane to your point, the use of Occam's Razor in an argument is totally unimpressive. The appeal to Occam's Razor is incredibly over-used, and equally meaningless, but it's not really necessary to make your point so I am not trying to slam your idea for the appeal. It's just, like, you know, awesome, excellent, dude, whatever.... Pet peeve here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Such self-loathing!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
QM deals with the nature of physical existence.
Physical existence exists as a probability function, a design. The actual physical matter or energy is a secondary effect to the pre-existing design which can affect instantaneous manifestations of different form, such as going from a wave to particle-like and back again. In fact, QM effects can occur superluminally from our vantage point, (entanglement), and suggests either a different, more hidden structure that the observed universe is part of (spiritual maybe?), or superluminal, and beyond time, rates of transfer of information and maybe energy are possible. Whatever the case may be, we clearly see that the basic concept of materiality is not very physical at all, but in reality contains properties in human traditions referred to as spiritual. As an aside, one wonders if according to QM, the energy of a thought, even a thought from the past or future, exists in the sense or similar level of the energy of a particle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
If you're saying ( as it seems) that QM implies matter/energy don't really exist, but only a "design", well, that's just not correct. No, that's not quite what I am saying.
At the QM level, physical entities are described by a wave vector representing a superposition of possible quantum states.
That's what I am saying. The superposition of possible quantum states is a design, which is what exists first, and the existence of one of those states in observed matter and energy is derivative of that design, not the other way around. The design, "the superposition of pssible quantum states," exists first and prior to physical existence as we know it everyday life. This is applicable to my concept of ID. In terms of criticism of ID that focusses exclusively on macro-scopic processes, I think this issue still has relevance because materialists discount ID a priori because they insist ID involves non-material concepts and mechanisms. you are right in that much of what is written about ID seems to dodge the mechanism argument and focus on forensically showing a mechanism had to be involved, that ID is a more plausible answer, but to dismiss the concept, as materialists do, because it involves non-material processes is, imo, faulty reasoning since materialist evolutionists are doing so based on a false concept of physical existence. Indeed, it can be shown that fundamentally physical existence is information ordered into a design, and that the "material" in terms of Newtonian or classical paradigms is a secondary, derivative aspect of reality, in terms of the physical world. The design is first and defines the potential that we experience as physical. This message has been edited by randman, 08-03-2005 02:58 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
So your version of ID is, at least, rather different from the Behe/Dembski version. Not really. They don't get into theories on how ID might work, and instead just state the evidence is best explained by some sort of design mechanism. On QM, I think you are dodging the point. First, I suppose that it's true that everything exhibits design. That's an observed fact, and unlike you, I think it has great relevance. But secondly, looking at the particulars of QM, there is definitely evidence of the design as a potential for form exists prior to one single form. I don't know how you can just dismiss that basic discovery of QM. The paradigm of QM is a significant departure from what physical reality consists of. In the older paradigm, one could argue that the design of, say, a photon is merely a by-product or a co-product of it's existence in 3-D at any observed point in time. In other words, the physical state evolved and the design is thus a product of that evolution. However, in reality, we are not even sure if a photon exists in a single state. In reality, there is a superposition of states, a design by definition, that exists clearly first, and one of those states occurs in 3-D or 4-D based on it's interactions. So the design exists first prior to physical form, and that's a fairly significant departure in terms of how we think of physical existence. In fact, it's hard to say if it exists at all in terms of one definite state. John Wheeler, from what I have read, says the photon does not exist as either a wave or a particle, but is undefined and exists as probability for either. According to QM, that probability is real existence, and I agree, but it's a form of existence probably best understood as an information pattern which takes one definite "physical form" after certain events occur. As far aas Buddhism, Christian theology, etc,...the principles of QM are reflected in many spiritual traditions but not necessarily the specific doctrines of whether Jesus was resurrected, or whether Buddha's departure from Hinduism is correct, etc,...but in terms of the spiritual realm, these different belief systems share some commonalities which QM now seems to be getting into, which is one reason I think QM is studying what was formerly known as spiritual principles. Now, if you are saying QM does not necessarily show a Designer, that could be true, although consciousness/observer based interpretations do seem to strongly indicate the presence of a design mechanism and the necessity for a Universal Consciousness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
the design could easily be the product of some sort of emergent universal consciousness nothing like the Abrahamic God concept, So? I think you are confused about ID. ID does not speculate about the theological aspects of the Designer. Heck, ID could well back the idea of aliens assisting the development of life on earth. It is not a theological concept. In terms of science, forensics is science not philosophy and so is ID. Both seek to assess whether Intelligent Design is at work in some fashion.
Again, this really begs the question of where one detects design. We can get into more details, but design is apparent. The fact that all humans, for example, have some common traits is proof of design. The issue is how the design came to be, not whether design exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Forensics studies whether something contains design or an intelligent causal agent. So it's not the study of design is unscientific.
IDers state they believe aspects of what we in creation can be best understood as indicative of design, of being designed by an Intelligence. I believe they are clearly correct on that point. They also maintain that mechanisms in materialist evolution are insufficient to explain all the data we see that is called life, and I agree there. I find the arguments on irreducible complexity compelling, in fact. In terms of mechanisms, many IDers don't seem to delve into how a Designer would design. Personally, I take a different approach and believe we are discovering mechanisms for direct engineering (design implementation) within QM.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
There is absolutely nothing in Science that is incompatible with the notion of Intelligent Design. That's true, but it still upsets evolutionists perhaps because evolution has been used as an argument against the existence of God and they are loathe to give that up. That's about the only reason I can think of.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024