One in the eye for intelligent design

I don't think it contradicts evolution. But it really doesn't explain anything.

 

Just google it man. I'm not for it, I don't see how its even being considered to be brought into science classes.

 

LMFAO!


Do creationists really still embarrassingly use the watchmaker argument when trying to support their ideas?

 

Yes, yes they do, "I don't understand it all, therefore goddidit!' is their mantra.

 

I like how Slim completely, completely ignored the whole point of HAVING TO PROVE IT. Intelligent Design should never get anywhere until it gets to that point. Its the simple but effective scientific method. There is where every debate on should end. Can't prove it? Well too bad, as far as I am concerned Intelligent Design is just as likely and believable as MLB player Carl Everett's theory that dinosaurs never existed.

 

There is nothing to prove, since it's based on faith.

The only thing they can do is point to their incredulity, their ignorance, and to things science can't explain . . yet.

 

This is a very good start for those who truly want to hear the other side.

http://www.illustramedia.com/tppinfo.htm

http://www.illustramedia.com/tpppreview.htm

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]T[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]he[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] PRIVILEGED PLANET[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]A 60 minute video documentary[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]There is an opinion, common among scientists and intellectuals, that our Earthly existence is not only rather ordinary, but in fact, insignificant and purposeless. The late astronomer Carl Sagan typifies this view in his book "Pale Blue Dot":[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Because of the reflection of sunlight the Earth seems to be sitting in a beam of light, as if there were some special significance to this small world. But it’s just an accident of geometry and optics.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But perhaps this melancholy assumption, despite its heroic pretense, is mistaken. Perhaps the unprecedented scientific knowledge acquired in the last century, enabled by equally unprecedented technological achievements, should, when properly interpreted, contribute to a deeper appreciation of our place in the cosmos.[/FONT]​

____________________________________________________________




[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In this 60-minute video documentary we will explore a striking feature of the natural world. A feature as widely grounded in the evidence of nature as it is wide-ranging in its implications: the conditions that allow for intelligent life on Earth also make it strangely well suited for viewing and analyzing the universe.[/FONT]

The fact that our atmosphere is clear; that our moon is just the right size and distance from Earth, and that its gravity stabilizes the Earth’s rotation; that our position in our galaxy is just so; that our sun is its precise mass and composition: all of these factors (and many more), are not only necessary for Earth’s habitability; they also have been surprisingly crucial for scientists to measure and make discoveries about the universe.​

Mankind is unusually well positioned to decipher the cosmos. To put it more technically, “measurability” seems to correlate with habitability.​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But is this correlation between the existence of complex life and our ability to make scientific discoveries simply a coincidence or the result of blind chance? Or does it point to a deeper explanation? The Privileged Planet will examine these questions in a remarkable search for evidence of design and purpose within the universe.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Utilizing stunning computer animation and the visual archives of NASA, the Hubble Space Telescope Institute, the European Space Agency, and leading observatories throughout the world, the program will present a spectacular view of our planet, galaxy, and the entire cosmos.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The result is an extraordinary documentary[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]and a fascinating look at a timeless question: [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]What is our significance[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]within the grand scheme of the universe?[/FONT]​

 

http://www.privilegedplanet.com/endorsements.php

Check out the brilliant minds that endorse this idea. But I guess they are idiots, too.

 

Take a minute and read some of these reviews. They are pretty thought provoking.



The Privileged Planet

Is there life elsewhere in the universe? The Privileged Planet gives a new spin to the argument that conditions on Earth are essentially unique.

Authors Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards suggest Earth was designed for scientific discovery. They introduce the “measurability” concept—-the idea that Earth is ideal for scientific observation. For example, the authors argue that if the Moon were slightly larger or smaller, scientists couldn’t study eclipses. Or if atmospheric conditions were different, astronomers wouldn’t be able to observe stars from Earth’s surface. The authors then ask what the chances are that another planet could have the same specifications necessary for conducting scientific research.

The book critiques the Copernican principle, which holds that Earth is not special in its ability to support life. The authors argue that Earth’s measurability demonstrates the flaws in the Copernican principle and marks the theory’s limitations as astrobiology dogma.

Yet instead of analyzing research, the book focuses on debates about the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), specifically the Drake equation. The book also dwells on numerous philosophical statements by Carl Sagan. But because SETI now extends to planetary evolution and prebiotic molecular chemistry, the authors’ criticisms paint a misleading view of the subject. More analyses of peer-reviewed studies and less criticism of philosophical statements would be better.

The book’s second limitation is its circular-reasoning tendency. The authors repeatedly argue that a system’s components would not be as measurable if the system itself were entirely different.

For example, one chapter explains that, since earthquakes exist, scientists can measure and learn more about them. However, planets without similar quakes wouldn’t provide scientists with as much information about plate tectonics, the structure of planetary mantles, or related geological phenomena; and so on.

But while we’ve learned much about the solar system, we know very little about planets outside the solar system. Thus it’s reckless speculation to claim natural systems on other planets would pose insurmountable barriers to any inhabitants making scientific discoveries.

Despite these criticisms, the authors’ argument does move forward one side of the origin-of-life debate. Because the topic of extraterrestrial life elicits extreme responses across the board, the authors’ general skepticism is useful.

The authors’ ability to juggle research perspectives from many different fields is also impressive. Each chapter presents thought-provoking examples of astronomical, geological, and biological systems, and then demonstrates how scientific observation is possible due to the conditions that make Earth habitable.

This ambitious, multidisciplinary approach paints an inspiring portrait of the delicate balance needed to sustain life. At the very least, the book’s poetic praise of Earth’s pristine measurability will leave readers much to ponder.

Amy Coombs is a research technician in a biophysics lab; her science features have aired on National Public Radio.
___________________________________________________________

Albert Einstein once remarked that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe was that it was comprehensible. For the past few centuries, no one has offered a satisfactory non-theological explanation as to why this should be so.

In recent years, however, a small group of scientists and thinkers have decided to try a novel approach combining science with theology, albeit not of the fundamentalist genre. The result has been the growing and increasingly influential "Intelligent Design" (ID) movement, a major project of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, where I was a senior fellow for nearly 10 years. I never worked with the ID people, but found the effort fascinating, both as hard science and hard cultural and intellectual struggle.

Specifically, Intelligent Design holds that it is possible to study the biological and physical realms for evidence of design, without positing the identity, intent, or even the competence of the designer. Throughout the '90s, ID fought mostly against the "sacred creation myth of the materialist West."

Evolution, the best guess of a brilliant 19th-century scientist, has not been wearing well of late. A lot of little questions are starting to add up to One Big Question — much to the chagrin of the "If it isn't matter, it doesn't matter" crowds in science, education, and culture.

"The Privileged Planet," however, is not about Charles Darwin. It addresses matters pertaining to life, intelligibility, and design in the cosmos as a whole.

Ever since astronomers first figured out that the universe is a pretty big place, the assumption has been that, life-wise, bigger is better. We all know the logic. Posit 100 billion galaxies with 100 billion stars each. If only one in a million has planets, and only one in a million of those can support life, the universe should still be a pretty fecund locale.

But Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Richards point out that bringing together the conditions for life as we know it is so complex that advanced life may be exceedingly rare. For it's not just a matter of earth, water, fire, and air. It also involves circumstellar and galactic habitable zones, moons and eclipses, neighbors, and an endless array of complex interactions and feedback cycles, to name only a few factors.

Everything, so far as we can tell, must come together just right. We may not be alone in the universe. But if we're incredibly rare, it's because we're also incredibly improbable.
And yet . . .

As the authors demonstrate in detail, the confluence of factors and forces that give rise to life also provides a dandy view of the universe. Time after time, they show: That which makes us possible, also empowers us to understand the universe.

For the cosmos is more than a spectacle — the same in all directions — that we view through an atmosphere that is, most fortunately for us, transparent. The universe is also a laboratory. Studying what it does, from our vantage point, unlocks its secrets far more effectively than it might, were we to study elsewhere.

In a sense, this is no new idea. The anthropic principle, which comes in several flavors, explains that the universe is the way it is because, if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to understand it.

Tautological, perhaps. But the principle can also suggest that the universe is the way it is because it was designed with us in mind.

Early modern science allegedly put an end to that conceit by showing that, not only were we not the center of the universe, but there was nothing special about us. Now, it turns out, science may be showing that we and our planet are far more special than we could have known.

The question is, why? And what meanings do we assign to that specialness? The late Carl Sagan liked to describe humanity as creatures made of stardust, the universe looking at itself. "The Privileged Planet" suggests that the universe may be far more than that:

"Is it possible that this immense, symphonic system of atoms, fields, forces, stars, galaxies, and people is the result of a choice, a purpose or intention, rather than simply some inscrutable outworking of blind necessity or an inexplicable accident? If so, then it's surely possible that there could be evidence to suggest such a possibility . . .

"Perhaps we have also been staring past . . . a signal revealing a universe so skillfully crafted for life and discovery that it seems to whisper of an extra-terrestrial intelligence immeasurably more vast, more ancient, and more magnificent than anything we've been willing to expect or imagine."

It is doubtful that the ID movement will ever publish a peer-reviewed journal article, or hold a press conference, announcing the identity of the Intelligent Designer. But ID poses fine challenges to the "Tell us what we want to hear, the way we want to hear it" crowds, in science, faith, and in our culture generally.

Perhaps that's why ID makes so many people so uneasy that they dare not admit their fascination. It messes with their orthodoxies. It gets in the way of their shtick. It forces them — and maybe us — to think.


Philip Gold is president of Aretea, a Seattle-based public and cultural affairs center, and author of "Take Back the Right."

____________________________________________________________

 

http://www.privilegedplanet.com/QandA.php#question1

 

Its a far cry from perfect, but I think a lot of the folks who feel that there is only intelligent design carry these.





There are somethings science can't explain, for everything else there's FaithCard.

 

Nope, out of the billions upon billions of stars in the universe, one just happens to have a planet that is able to support life, wow, what are the odds?? Probably a billion to one, so you see how it's possible.

It's pretty simple, it's the conceit of hindsight. Since you are here and alive, and can't possibly understand the workings of the universe, you see the universe as being designed especially for you due to how it fits 'you'.

But you see, it's the other way around, you just happen to fit 'it', due to a long process involving the laws of the universe, evolution and a buttload of time.

 

yeah, I've always viewed this "intelligent design" things as "I don't want to be an accident, I WANT to be SPECIAL!!!!" because really, that's what most of them are about really.
the thing is that the fact that there is a universe, the fact that we have such a complex nervous system, the fact that they compare the body to a watch ( a clumsy, stupid comparison) is testament to the fact that if there IS a god, he works in a scale different from Human understanding.
a much larger, much complex scale, not something that can be measured in 14,000 years, but a grand scale of millions and millions of years, because again, that to God would be NOTHING.
but some people insist in making their bigger than life God a petty man that works in simple terms, all the while, the same people highlight how marvelously complex the human body is.
it seems to be mostly about ego.

 

"Listen up, maggots. You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."

 

Full Metal Jacket?

 

Tyler Durden from Fight Club

 

I've never actually seen that movie start to finish, but all my friends tell me it's my kind of film.

 

that is hilarious

 

I believe this also. Only because the other way gives me a headache, thinking what came before nothing. We are an Antfarm. We can grow, make choices, Make our own Path, pass on genes, and hope that nobody shakes the Antfarm.

 

Maybe it has always been, why do you feel the need to assign a beginning and an end to everything?

 

Problem is with that way of thinking.... Evolution isn't Intelligent design.

Intelligent design says that a divine being created everything on this planet, all at once, and all in their forms they are today. Nothing evolves ever. Nothing changes. That divine being created everything perfect.

 

Maybe it's because you're so limited though. What we call "nothing" and "something", "before" and "after" may have little to do with anything.

 

I don't think it says that. It just provides a reason for those changes.