Intelligent Design and Ultimate Absolute Truth

Since this is my first posting, I hope that I may be a challenge to some of the great thinkers and seekers of truth that I've read here. There are some things I believe really need to be said in regard to several comments I've seen on different areas on this website.First, the whole debate about creation vs. evolution, intelligent design vs. random "natural" happenings, God vs. no God... it all boils down to one main question. Is there one, absolute, objective truth that exists whether we believe it or not, or isn't there? Is a clear, daytime sky blue and healthy grass green, or do I determine what color they are by what I choose to believe the colors to be?The absolute, undeniable fact (although we may not always be ready to handle it) is that we were all intelligently designed to seek truth and the whole world and everything in it is proof of that. If one person tells you one thing, and another person tells you another, the first thing our intelligently ordered brain does is begin to compare facts, figures, sensory input, etc. to determine which person is telling us the truth and which isn't. This is because our great designer knows we need to be able to discern truth to survive - that's "survival of the fittest". By the way, history proves that the most ardent seekers of truth, mainly, FAITHFUL religious leaders and their followers, contiune to be the "survivors of the fittest". So here is the truth, whether I, or anyone else choose to believe it and live accordingly, or not, and definitely not because I say so, but because the creator of all things reveals HIS absolute truth to those who seek it with a pure, sincere heart:The universe, our solar system, the Earth, our bodies and every other life form on, in or above the Earth is a very complex, sophisicated, finely ordered and finely tuned array of systems within systems, all working together to sustain an exact and fragile balance of life as we know it. And this infintely complex array of symbionic, life-sustaining systems is progessing toward some "thing" we can't really know, understand, or explain. But we can see certain progressions - in human knowledge and ability, in technology, communications, exchange of information. etc. We know we are progressing toward something, we just don't definitively know what, why or where the end will be, except that we can rest assured that we CAN always progress toward greater understanding of truth.When one of us very, very limited human "beings" (not creators) here on this Earth "evolves" to the point of extreme intellectual perfection that he is able to intelligently design a new super-sophisticated, revolutionary system of many integrated systems (which our bodies are), in a new, better, robotic "vehicle" to carry him around effectively and then carefully transplant and integrate his brain, personality and whatever else he calls his SOUL into it, and then create and set the necessary system-of-systems into motion that will perpetuate the progress of that "vehicle" into the future with a definitive destiny into the infinite unknown, THEN that new "superperson" just MAY have a right to speak about so-called "flaws" in Intelligent Design. Simply put, when he can make a better human body, or a better universe, then let's talk. I would put my money on the fact this will never happen.But let's take it one step further (as God has done): Now if that person could "program" and equip his new, "superhuman self" to perform supernatural miracles and healings and raise people from the dead, including himself, just like the HISTORICAL Jesus Christ did, and even greater yet, gather a group of faithful followers (the apostles/His Church) to be willing to die to keep this seemingly unimaginable and incredibly unbelieveable story alive and continuing to grow in strength, power and faith for 2,000 years - now that would be worth noting!!! Oh yes, as a side-note, if he could also arrange and obtain the power and authority over all the Earth (itself a masterful display of an infinite number of very sophisticated systems-within-sysytems) to proclaim a NEW method of time keeping in which the pivotal point of the chronological "paradigm shift" represents the year HE came into the world and changed it forever, as with the birth of Jesus Christ, THEN I will be the first in line to shake his hand and listen to whatever he may have to say about intelligent design! Until that time, that I don't expect anytime soon, I will give All glory and honor to the omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God of ALL intelligent creation!! Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Amen!!p.s.- True faith can never be opposed to true science, so "Intelligent Evolution" would be yet another plausible way that our awesome God would gently lead us to contemplate his infinite greatness and love for us!!

One4Truth writes:

quote:

---

Is a clear, daytime sky blue and healthy grass green, or do I determine what color they are by what I choose to believe the colors to be?

---

The really short answer?We can never know.When you look at the sky, you are not interacting with the sky. Instead, you are experiencing a third-hand response. The light that is scattered by the sky is directed downward where it excites nerves in your retina that passes a signal along to your visual centers in your brain that then transfer the signal to the cognitive centers for you to think about it.How on earth would you know if one of those steps along the way were interfered with and you were merely being fed the sensation of the blue sky? When you touch something, you don't actually make physical contact with the other molecules...electromagnetic forces push against your skin which again fires nerves which travel along your nervous system to your brain which processes it and feeds to other centers of your brain for cognitive thought. Again, how would you be able to tell if that were being tampered with and you were simply being fed a sensation? We see this all the time in people who have had body parts amputated...every now and again they will feel a sensation that is coming from the body part that no longer exists. However, the processing areas in the brain are still there and we should not be surprised if every now and again they are stimulated and create a false sensation.

quote:

---

The universe, our solar system, the Earth, our bodies and every other life form on, in or above the Earth is a very complex, sophisicated, finely ordered and finely tuned array of systems within systems, all working together to sustain an exact and fragile balance of life as we know it.

---

Not in the slightest. In fact, it's just the opposite. Life is not exact at all. It is constantly changing. If I recall the numbers correctly, 90% of all species that have ever existed are extinct. Come back in a few million years and that "exact" life you mention won't look anything like what you saw now.

quote:

---

except that we can rest assured that we CAN always progress toward greater understanding of truth.

---

Incorrect. Since we will always be experiencing things through observation and since we will never be able to observe everything, we will never be able to reach that "ultimate" understanding you are hinting at.

quote:

---

just like the HISTORICAL Jesus Christ

---

Evidence, please? There is precious little evidence that Jesus existed. Certainly not in the way that is described in the Bible.

quote:

---

True faith can never be opposed to true science, so "Intelligent Evolution" would be yet another plausible way that our awesome God would gently lead us to contemplate his infinite greatness and love for us!!

---

Um, from a logical standpoint, why bother with the extraneous feature?That is, if we have a fully functional model of how coins land when flipped and that model does not require the need of any external conscious agent, why propose a model that is identical except for the addition of chocolate sprinkles? What, exactly, is gained by the addition of a part that doesn't change anything?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Welcome to EvC. While I did not agree with your post, and will proceed to rebut it, it was well composed for a first post.

quote:

---

it all boils down to one main question. Is there one, absolute, objective truth that exists whether we believe it or not, or isn't there? Is a clear, daytime sky blue and healthy grass green, or do I determine what color they are by what I choose to believe the colors to be?

---

Unfortunately you did not support this claim at all, which makes it an assertion. It appears to me that evo and id and creationism all believe there is an objective truth to get at. In fact, if anyone is going to deny an objective truth (regarding the material world) it is going to be creationists.But even if all agree there is an objective truth, there is still room for relative (ie personal) truth which is what makes each one of our experiences of that objective world different. We have, because of our physical limitations, different perspectives.In essence we will never know if your blue sky is the same color I experience when I say I see a blue sky, though it will have come from the same material wavelength of light (ie the objective "color"). This possibility is known as qualia inversion. You can also see people that do have a different experience of the world in that they are color blind and so incapable of distinguishing the wide array of wavelengths humans are generally capable of seeing.Thus there is objective truth, objective material truth, and relative perceptive truth.The difference is how each method of gaining knowledge handles perception to get at objective truth.

quote:

---

The absolute, undeniable fact (although we may not always be ready to handle it) is that we were all intelligently designed to seek truth and the whole world and everything in it is proof of that.

---

This is a good example of how creationists do not properly handle perception in trying to get at the truth.You have just started your whole argument with a statement that makes your argument circular. You cannot bring in ID in order to prove ID.Furthermore I would deny that we are all seeking truth, and that the world is proof of that. While many do try to find some level of truth about the world, the sad reality is most are simply trying to find the truth of how to gain power over other humans, or how to get enough food to survive till the next day.There are many examples of this and some of the best are the oppression of truth seekers by creationists. The inquisition was a horrific exercise in oppressing the seeking of objective truth, in order to support defunct Xian creationist claims.

quote:

---

THEN that new "superperson" just MAY have a right to speak about so-called "flaws" in Intelligent Design. Simply put, when he can make a better human body, or a better universe, then let's talk.

---

You can see the extension of your argument's circular flaw here. At this point, using your unproven assertion that ID is true, you argue that you do not have to listen to anyone about whether ID is right or wrong until they themselves can create a world and living beings as well as the one your God built.

quote:

---

to be willing to die to keep this seemingly unimaginable and incredibly unbelieveable story alive and continuing to grow in strength, power and faith for 2,000 years - now that would be worth noting!!!

---

What about Jews, who are still quiet alive and have been going at it much longer than Xians? What about Buddhists? Shintoists? Hindu? Heck, how about Islam (which is just a few centuries shorter than Xianity? Zoroastrians are still around too and they were here before Xians.

quote:

---

to proclaim a NEW method of time keeping in which the pivotal point of the chronological "paradigm shift" represents the year HE came into the world and changed it forever, as with the birth of Jesus Christ, THEN I will be the first in line to shake his hand and listen to whatever he may have to say about intelligent design!

---

You are aware that there are other working calendar systems? This includes the Jews which predate Xianity.And since you seem interested in the truth, you may want to know that the Xian calendar system is only connected to the birth of Christ in name alone. It does not revolve around the time of year of his birth, nor even the actual year of his birth. In fact the calendar involved a number of flaws that required adjusting it throughout the centuries, including wiping out whole weeks and years.Calendars are man made, and do not reflect any objective truth.

quote:

---

I will give All glory and honor to the omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God of ALL intelligent creation!! Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Amen!!

---

You have done nothing to come to this conclusion. Even if there were objective "higher creative powers" you have given no support for why Xianity is the only proper, objectively true, power.In conclusion I want to point out that you appear to be using a very weak (or broad) definition for ID. Intelligent Design in its strictest sense is a movement which argues that evidence for the design of biological organisms can be found through scientific investigation. Your arguments have not addressed this at all. You might want to just use "creationism" in the future to avoid confusion. Creationism entails an intelligent designer, but does not base its arguments on evidence derived from scientific methods alone.------------------
holmes

holmesI think you hit upon a key element here. The point of having science operate the way it does is to cut down on the number of choices in order to make progress.If we agree to a color being blue in concert with a machine that measures wavelength and we can agree to shades of color in concert with a machine that measures grey scale while we have a good grasp of the mechanics of vision then we,by agreement,can state that we see the same color.
It is to those who place an arguement along the lines of subjectivity who are in error, unless they can specify in as great a detail or better evidence of their position. Rught or wrong, without this objectivity we would still be using alchemy and trepanning as cutting edge technology.We only gain in our knowledge by holding to doubt in concert with an openess to new ideas.Those new ideas do not wipe out previous points of view but subtley alter our perceptions of it.One4Truth,could you tell me what you believe intelligent design to mean?------------------
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it."[This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-07-2003]

Not so. Unless you're colourblind we already know the blue you see is the same blue I see. You know those funky dot-based colour blindness tests, where you see numbers or not? They only work if we see colours in the same way. If we didn't the contrasts would be all wrong, and completely inconsistent across people.

Well, I think it does boil down to a question, but not that one.Is there an ultimate "truth" - an objective reality that exists beyond our conception of it? Maybe. I think there is.The ultimate question that it "all" boils down to, though, is "what method is best for arriving at the closest approximation of that reality?"To my mind, fooling yourself - aka "faith" - or blind recitation of a 3000-year-old book are inferior methods compared to actually taking a look around and seeing what's there. I guess you're free to disagree but science gets results. What scientific breakthroughs have ever come about via supernaturalism?

Well ... all the colour blind tests show is that
some people cannot differentiate between different
colours ... it doesn't say anything about how we each experience
those colours (beyond being able to see a difference or not).BUT ... I would suspect that as we all have broadly the
same 'hardware' and 'software' ('greyware' ??) we won't
be that much different to one another.

No, it shows more than that. It shows that the contrasts between colours are the same for different people. If we saw different colours in different ways, the contrasts would be different. It's not just a matter of distinguishing colours, it's a matter of contrast.

Nitpicking, I know, but I must ask: Mr Jack, have you never gone along with your wife to pick out curtains?And my own two eyes perceive color differently - not much, but perceptibly.

I don't have a wife, so that would prove difficult. Frivolity aside, though, that is a matter of taste, not perception. Then you are slightly colourblind in one eye.

In any case I think we have wondered considerably off topic. If anyone wishes to debate this side issue further, could they please create a new thread? Ta.

I think, Coragyps, that you just need to clean your glasses DT (Oolon)

Where to begin? I guess we'll look at the first line of One4Truth's debate. Right out of the gate we get out first misrepresentation of the Theory of Evolution. Evolutionists have said repeatedly that it is not a random process.
Secondly, it is not now, nor was it in the past, nor will it be in the future, a debate about God vs. no God.Then we have this: This, to me, seems to be the crux of his arguement so let' break these claims down, shall we.
First, O4T seems to claiming the this truth (of intelligent design) is absolute, which, according to Websters Ninth Collegiate Dictionary, would imply that we are free from imperfection. I'm sure my cousin would have something to say about that, since tomorrow he will be burying his wife who died from cancer this past Sunday. Ok, I know, that was a cheap shot...Sorry. But if this claim of an intelligent designer is absolute, we need to come to an understanding about intelligence. I don't think I need to repeat the list of all the unintelligent designs we see in this world, but suffice it to say, I think the lack of this supposed intelligence is absolutely clear.
Of course, I'm sure that here is where we will get all the nonsense about the original sin and the fall of man, and how man was perfect prior that event. Nevermind that this all seeing, all knowing, ever present God apparently designed us with pre-existing flaws that could be exploited once the sin was commmited (didn't he see that coming?)().Second, O4T seems to be claiming that this truth is undeniable. Really? How so? I deny it...see how easy that was (). Ha, I know, another cheap shot. But what is undeniable? One4Truth, you simply can't make such a claim without any evidence of support. How is intelligent design incontestable? If that were indeed true, then the debate would be over (and I'm willing to bet that you think it is). I agree with Holmes here, this is a circular argument.Thirdly, O4T says that intelligent design is a fact. Wow! One of the facts about facts is that they have to be objective. Sorry, O4T, but creationism fails the test of objectivity.But I'm not completely convinced that One4Truth was presenting this as arguement in support of Intelligent Design. If you read further, he adds the following: It seems to me that he's somehow attempting to equate "truth" with "fitness". Fitness is simply a measure of reproductive success. Please O4T, explain how the "FAITHFUL religious leaders and their followers" show higher levels of fitness than the rest of us. For that matter, please define what you mean by "truth". Do you mean truth as in the Christain interpertation of their bible? I'll bet you do. Other religions have their own definitin of truth with an equal amount of evidence of support. Until you can prove that your truth is the real truth and their truth has no proof, I can truthfully say that your proof has no truth ()And perhaps my favorite sentence: ...redundant. ...no longer a scientific arguement. ... lacks objectivity and testability. ...argues against the very fitness he was earlier claiming.Anyway, there's so much more to add, but I really do have to go to a funeral and won't be back at my computer until sometime Wednesday. See ya all then

If you reduce the tests to grey-scale can you see
the patterns or not?As I remember them the tonal quality has to be
equal (maybe I'm mis-remembering that though).That we can see that the colours are different from one
another doesn't mean we see them the same as other people.
It means that some people can see them as different from
one another (colours).That aspect is purely subjective and unknowable (unless we
find a way of decoding the brain activity tha indicates
colour).It's also not particularly useful -- the label 'blue' for
example is taught as a common reference frame -- so even if
inside our heads blue is red (if you see what I mean) it's
still 'blue'.