[url]www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-6/p48.html[/url]

Two interesting op-eds in Physics Today concerning creationism/Intelligent Design and other sciences.

Thought I'd add it to one of the other threads, but decided it needed its own.

It seems to me that once science catches up, science and intelligent design will agree.  

Just because I don't know how a watch is made, doesn't mean it occurred naturally.  Obviously, someone had to put all the complex pieces together.  The fact that I don't understand how doesn't change the fact that it happened.

I read a letter in [u]Time[/u] magazine from a woman who's husband was a scientist.  He came home one day and excitedly announced that they were now fairly certain that when light appeared in the universe, it happened all at once.  And she said, "Oh, you mean like when God said let there be light?"  

EVERY SINGLE process, object and organism that we CAN see the origins of MOST DEFINITELY had a living, breathing intelligent INDIVIDUAL / GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS responsible for its creation.

NOWHERE do we observe random selection or even cumulative natural selection producing BMW's.

Or more specifically, take automotive generators that essentially ran all the electrical components of an automobile ONLY as efficiently as the engine was running. We didn't get alternators (a much more efficient design) by natural selection. We got it by intelligent design of SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS.

Since random selection is NOWHERE observed, and intelligent design is EVERYWHERE observed in objects / organism we CAN see the origins of, one would look FIRST to assume intelligent design by SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS in organism we CANNOT see the origins of.

And NO WAY does natural selection = intelligent design.

To the contrary, Mr. garandman.

Intelligence is the process by which one part of the mind generates random thoughts, and a subsequent part of the mind filters out the thoughts that are unfit.

Intelligence = the natural selection of ideas.

And would that include lightening starting a forest fire?

Garandman, where are you coming up with this concept of "random selection"?  

Anyway, your alternator example isn't a very good analogy for the "intelligent design" theory of biological origins.  If the origins of modern cars truly followed the "intelligent design" model of the origins of modern humans:

1) Current car models would have existed for as long as anyone has been around to notice -- e.g., there would have been 2002 BMWs and Hondas in 3300 BC.

2) All cars would use exactly the same technology and would have had it "forever".

[;)]

I don't see your point.

Intelligence (not what I'm referring to) is an intangible which may or may not ever be revealed.

"Intelligent design" (which I am referring to) is the application of intelligence to the arena of design, giving the intangible, "intelligence", a tangible means of evidencing itself.

Ipso facto, if a tangible object evidences intelligent design, that fact would lead the observer to a starting point in his investigation of its origins that says  "Some intelligent, sentient being is responsible for the design of this organism."

Competing theories could easily exist on this.

Many regard lightning as random.

Alternatively, a Scriptural view which holds God as in complete control of all things that occur on this earth could view lightning as ANYTHING but random.

I don't necessarily have an opinion, one way or the other as to the randomness of lightning.

naturally, such an analogy would be strained as its being used to compare the origins of objects where we are PRESENT at their origin, to the origin of objects where NO ONE was present to observe their origin. NO analogy can do that perfectly.


Yup, its a stretch, but hopefully it'll convey a little of my POV before it breaks.

Now back up a durn tootin' minute.

That ain't so Fester. [:D]

The design of the space shuttle definitely shows "intelligence."

Does ANYONE FOR A SINGLE SECOND think that intelligence came about by "random thought?"

No way, Jo-say. It camse by organized, sentient thought.

Almost snuck one past me there, pardner!!!

okay, I'll get in on this...

Evolution can be seen as a master plan.

DNA is a master blueprint of what an organism CAN be.

It would be a VERY cruel thing for a God of LOVE and compassion to put things into an environment and not allow them to adapt to it.

I never understood how some people took some things in the Bible as true, unalterable fact and then dismiss other stories as a "parable".

I think the 7 days of creation is relative.  The Lord said one day is but a thousand years, so measurments of time are negotiable.

There are holes in the theory of evolution, just like there are holes in the Bible.  When Copernicus got in a hurry on one of the first widespread versions, they left entire books out.  This is what the Bible is based on today.

The Holy Bible is man's transcription of Gods word and man messed it up just like everything else God has given him.  Depending on which version you read you will get a different impression, but the gospel is still John 3:16.

Believe in what you will, what makes you feel better and what is the truth and forget about this bickering.

The gospel is summed up in John 3:16.  The rest is gravy and good reading.

Who or what else but God could create something so infinitely wonderful and beautiful as DNA.

Actually...

I don't think that there's anyone now living who was present when (1889) the first auto was made.  Certainly, none of us were around when the most basic technologies used in the auto, fire and the wheel, were discovered, and no one left any records of how they happened.

It's a mystery!  Since we can never really KNOW, with certainty, where cars came from, perhaps we should just accept that they were created out of nothing by an "intelligent designer" for some cosmic purpose. [:D]

'Cept whadda ya do with that old "car from hell" story of which everybody has at least one?????

[}:D]

Copernicus screwed up the Bible?  No wonder they're still making Polish jokes... [%|]

Whoa! Hey! Copernicus?  What version? King James? What books got left out?  Amazing.  I thought I would have heard of this before.

OK, I'm reading the second article and it seems that the author is saying that science is limited by it's own rules and can not hope to explain anything that is not "naturalistic", and does not fit within the many limitations of science.

Some might say science can never explain the world adequately because it refuses to admit any kind of knowledge that is not physical.



If these peoples' opinions are correct, science is incapable of dealing with such things as the origin of life, the creation of the universe, etc., if God exists and had anything to do with it.

People of faith may then rightfully reject science as a means of explaining much of the natural world.

Ok, no one lets Belloc know about this thread.