Intelligent design: no designer?!?

[GaYellowDawg]

Intelligent Design Doesn NOT Posit The Existence Of A DESIGNER
Posted by cryingshame

how many damn times need I post this.

Do SOME Scientists and Theorists who understand what ID is go too far and make an intellectual leap into positing the existance of a Being or Personhood who embodies the CAPACITY for Design?

Yes.

But that is their error.

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

The whole gist of Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" is that irreducible complexity denotes intelligent - ergo, conscious - design. Intelligent design doesn't posit a designer; it requires a designer.

Scientists who understand ID know it for what it is: a sham. It promotes intellectual stagnation and laziness. If "because someone designed it that way" is your paradigm, you can explain anything away with a designer. Why does lightning occur? Zeus intelligently designed the thunderbolt and threw it. Why do earthquakes happen? Thor intelligently threw his intelligently designed hammer and made the earth shake. Why don't antibiotics work as well nowadays? God got pissed off at the homosexuals and designed new plagues. Intelligent design produces and promotes entirely unintelligent lack of intellectual rigor.

So why don't you explain to us how intelligent design occurs without a designer? Is the design random? Then why refer to it as "intelligent"? Is there some sort of slumbering force out there that unconsciously designs things? Then why not call it "unconscious design"? Because that's an oxymoron, perhaps? Is it design that happens on its own? Then why not call it "random chance"? Oh hell, why not just blame it on the midi-chlorians?

Explain away.

[Roland99]

1. I think it was a race of garden gnomes.

[LittleClarkie]

91. There's always the "alien kleenex" theory

Some martian sneezed and here we are.

[muriel_volestrangler]

103. That would be The Great Green Arkleseizure Theory

The Jartravartid Tribe of Viltvodle VI have got a theory that is as good as any I've heard. This is popularly known among the enlightened as the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory. According to that most famous of sages, Douglas Adams, the Jartravartids believe that the entire Universe was, in fact, sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. They live in perpetual fear of the time they call the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief, and are small blue creatures with more than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel.

http://www.angelfire.com/la/catapult/arkle.html

[Avalux]

2. The problem with Intelligent Design IMO -

assigning human-like qualities to the "creator" or whatever force brought about life. It makes no sense. That's about as simple as I can make it.

[KittyWampus]

8. One More Time, ID Does NOT Assign Human-like Qualities. YOU Do That

as do SOME ID theorists.

I state again and again, SOME ID theorists GO TOO FAR and jump to an unfounded position that Intelligence resides primarily within a Locus or Person.

But just because SOME go too far doesn't mean ALL do.

[Tux]

10. Genesis

CLearly says that god looks like a human. And gets angry for no reason. Human ualities are always thrown onto god.

[parkening]

12. Could it not be...

god-like qualities in humans?

[Tux]

48. Either way

It's arrogance.

[Lars39]

27. Yes, it does.

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php?PHPSESSID...

From the Center of Science and Culture:

<snip>Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations<snip>
______________________________________________________________________
And I'll ask again, Why are you backing pseudoscience that is clearly backed by right wing think tanks

[parkening]

29. Genetic fallacy

and poisoning the well. What part of that CSC comment do you take issue with?

[Lars39]

31. Why are you backing pseudoscience the rightwingers are backing?

[parkening]

32. It's still to be shown

that it's pseudoscience. And if it's true I don't want to oppose it just because I don't like those that are pushing it. That's a moronic reason.

[Lars39]

37. Actually, following what the right wing think tanks want us to do

is moronic.

[parkening]

40. We must remember

that truth is immutable regardless of where it comes from. The genetic fallacy is one of the most attractive fallacies---yet is still a fallacy.

[Zenlitened]

41. What is the 'genetic fallacy'?

:shrug:


(edit spelling)

[parkening]

44. Here:

We must eschew ID, not on its merits but, because of who's promoting it.

[Zenlitened]

52. Um, most reasonable people who've examined ID have found it to be...

... entirely without merit.

That's step one.

Acknowledging that it's being promoted by religious extremists for sinister political reasons... that's just another (but not the primary) reason to suspect it.

Believe me, I and many, many others know perfectly well why we've dismissed ID as bunk. It's because there's no science to it, nothing but semantics.

[parkening]

59. ~ducks the elephant flying past~

You've got a lot of 'splaining to do, Lucy. See #54 & 55.

Evolution didn't even properly describe finch beaks for crying out loud. It's just variation around a mean---every dirt farmer knows that.

[Zenlitened]

63. Google. Library. Your local bookstore.

All good sources for obtaiing facts to replace your fundie talking points.

Ducking? No... just not willing to waste any more time on you.

[wuushew]

66. Speciation is fact and is observable

DNA subject to natural mutation and genetic isolation results in populations unable to crossbred. The evidence exists in current organisims, the fossil record and from the body of knowledge gained from at least as far back as the 1950's when DNA was found to be the structural cause for heredity.

What counter evidence do you offer?

[parkening]

70. I love speciation

it is a fact and is observable---real science---woohoo!!

The fact remains that observed speciation is the opposite of what evolution requires. When a speciation event occurs the gene pool becomes smaller. Not a good thing when increased information is needed rather than decreased. D'oh.

[wuushew]

71. Where do you get this stuff?

This is not a personal attack, but you did graduate from a public highschool yes?

[Zenlitened]

72. Um, there is no evidence to support that hypothesis!

:D

[parkening]

75. It's not a hypothesis

it's a fact. A smaller breedable population by definition has a smaller gene pool than the previously unspeciated population. Ask your neighborhood biologist.

And for wuushew: yeah, and I got four years in engineering school and 16 years exp since then. Logic is your friend, learn some.

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. Yes, but there's two gene pools after speciation

I'd have hoped that an engineer would have remembered to count them. Twice, to be on the safe side. Each gene pool may then increase in size due to mutations that do not cause speciation. In the end, you end up with more variation in the world, as long as the genes produce viable organisms.

[Hugin]

90. There ya go...

"genes produce viable organisms." -- that phrase right there is
what most Creatio... I mean Intelligent Designers don't get about
Evolution.

All we see is the survivors. If it wasn't viable, it didn't
leave any copies of itself. No copies, no evidence.

[Zenlitened]

102. Miss the joke entirely, why dontcha?

:crazy:

[FiveGoodMen]

117. Arrogance is not your friend

get rid of it.

[wuushew]

42. please give your definition of pseudoscience

Main Entry: pseu·do·sci·ence
Pronunciation: "sü-dO-'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
: a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific
- pseu·do·sci·en·tif·ic /-"sI-&n-'ti-fik/ adjective
- pseu·do·sci·en·tist /-'sI-&n-tist/ noun

Hypotheses that cannot be tested nor draw rational conclusion do not a theory make. Just come to the realization that ID is a tool in the war against secularism and science by the religiously insane.

[parkening]

49. please give your definition of science

"Knowledge gained by observation of our universe." - parkening

There comes a point where we cannot observe things---things like the origin of the universe. These areas must be considered something other than science, para-science if you will. And every theory of origins has these areas. Don't kid yourself into thinking yours doesn't.

Whether ID is a tool used by the baddies does not change its truth value.

[wuushew]

58. Please don't interchange cosmology and biology

Although the study of the two use many of the same techniques. Intelligent Design is an assault of the well established theory of evolution. A theory 150 years old, one of the strongest is all of science and one that is being strengthened every day.

The same arguments you claim are valid against evolution can also be extended to all areas of scientific endeavor. Strangely enough those behind ID do not spend equal sums of money and time against "lesser theories".

Do you also rail against the field of geology since humanity was not around to witness events millions or billions of years before recorded human history? To overcome the observability problem scientists came up with the idea of uniformitarianism and formulate ideas on past sequences of events based on current processes and or geologic formations to explain past events.

The early formation of the universe is being probed currently by observations into deep space and experiments using particle accelerators. You seem to be hung up on what was there before the beginning questions. Such questions are irrelevant since anyway to understand lies outside human perception. What do you do with knowledge gained outside of scientific means? Pseudo-science and para-science have accomplished nothing. How is water divining, ESP or alchemy going these days? Science with high standards and its self correcting methods has given us the wonders of the modern age.

Does the crux of your argument come down to what is the best way of "knowing" the universe? Because faith is crappy way of doing it. I don't have faith in whether my car will start in the morning or faith that the gravitation is constant. Experience is based on observable phenomena, there is no other way to understand existence. To think otherwise is a waste of mental effort and human potential.

[johnaries]

60. your's is NOT a valid definition of Science.

try one of these:
Science is a process for evaluating empirical knowledge (the scientific method), a global community of scholars, and the organized body of knowledge gained by this process and carried by this community (and others). Natural sciences study nature; social sciences study human beings and society.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study
www6.nos.noaa.gov/coris/glossary.lasso

Since ID doesn't fit into any of these definitions, it is a pseudoscience.

[parkening]

73. In the main body of science

ID and evolution are indistinguishable. It only becomes an issue at the fringes. Where origins and complexity are involved. These stand on equal footing in these arenas. To say otherwise is to be blind to the shortcomings of your belief. The IDer says "that's proof of intelligent agency", whereas the evolutionist says "we just can't think of how it could possibly happen naturally".

On the fringes of knowledge, neither are actual science.

My definition by the way is not demonstrably different from yours.

[Avalux]

84. WHAT?

OK - prove your statement "In the main body of science, ID and evolution are indistinguishable". Please find a link or something, cause I'm laughing my ass off right now. Rediculous.
:rofl:

[johnaries]

94. My definition..is not demonstrably different from yours.

Uh, yeah. Right.:eyes:

[Inland]

104. Clearly, even you don't hold ID to a science

thus proving the difference: evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, to be proven or disproven by the scientific method.

ID isn't. ID simply declares itself. A proponent of ID simply does one of two things:1) announce that evolution theory is not proven, which itself doesn't prove ID, or 2) shows that he is a complete ignoramus about evolution theory, which certainly doesn't prove anything about ID.

But nobody ever tries to prove ID. ID pretends that any failure of evolutionary theory to explain, say, X percent of physical phenomena is X percent proof of ID. The ID proponent notes the lack of a fossile record as proof of ID, for example.

[Zenlitened]

106. Ask an ID proselytizer to explain their "theory" without...

... using the word evolution.

They run out of things to say pretty quickly.

[Inland]

107. Good tip!

It would be pretty clear whether they had any support for ID besides "evolution is confusing me".

[Fescue4u]

112. ID and evolution are not exclusive

Except maybe in the minds of extremist on either side.

In fact, IMO, evolution is a component of ID.

[Zenlitened]

114. Only if you think evolution has something to say...

... about the origin of the universe. It doesn't -- a fact many IDers can't seem to grasp.

As for the charge of extremism... I hardly think an insistence on evaluating scientific facts, rather than navel-gazing conjecture, can be considered extremism by anyone but a religious extremist.

[Fescue4u]

123. I disagree

Obviously evolution as it pertains to life on Earth does not impact the origin of the universe.

Clearly the universe began and life started later. I bet everyone would agree on that (even if they disagree on the amount of time between the events).

what Im saying is that if the universe was been created by an intelligent creator, then that creator would surely have the ability to utilize evolution if he felt so inclined.

It looks like I struck a nerve by discussion extremist. I really wasnt refering to you.

To me, an extremist is this particular context is anyone arrogant enough to believe they have all the facts and can rule out the oppositions viewpoint.

The fact is, there is a shitload of things that we don't know about origin of the universe and of mankind himself. We have alot of good ideas an theorys, but what we don't know FAR exceeds what we do know.

Heck, what we know we don't know exceeds what we know....let alone the things that we don't even know we don't know. (sorry, I just had to write that one out :) )

[Zenlitened]

127. No, I think what struck a nerve was the impression I had from your post...

... that ID and evolution could operate side-by-side. God-as-Oz, continually fiddling with the mechanism.

Your clarification that you envision a creator kind of "turning evolution loose" takes the discussion to a new level, in my view. A separate matter from evolution.

I don't subscribe to that notion myself, but I do think it can make for a more rigorous intellectual argument.

Peace. :hi:

[Avalux]

36. The problem with trying to explain Intelligent Design as a valid

alternative to the origin of life - humans cannot think outside our limitations. We are limited by time and space, by emotions...there may be an explanation of "How" and "Why" we are not capable of comprehending - that's where I'm at right now. We may never be able to answer the questions because we can't.

I DO NOT assign human-like qualities to the origin of life.

[parkening]

43. This same thinking applies to

evolution, too. To be consistent we must be skeptical of every theory of origins---not just ID---because there are how's and why's in each that are incomprehensible.

In my view, evolution has been picked, arbitrarily, as the "real science" and all others must fight just to be allowed at the table.

[Avalux]

45. WRONG

Evolution explains WHAT WE KNOW - FACTS. It is a scientific theory. Anything else isn't - so don't say "all others must fight just to be allowed at the table" unless you have some SCIENTIFIC evidence to confute evolution.

[parkening]

54. All right

take Behe's blood clotting cascade, or the bacterium flagella, or sight---160,000,000 year old salamander fossils that look exactly like today's salamanders, no known example of an information adding mutation....we could go on but I'm just going off the top of my head here.

Evolution cannot explain these---and certain of these outright contradict what evolution purports!! Your answer is "well just because we can't imagine how it happened doesn't mean it didn't happen"!!! This is not science, folks. It is conjecture from a preconceived notion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

77. Evolutionary pathways for blood clotting, the flagellum and sight

have all been put forward, by scientists who specialise in those areas. Just use Google to find them. That a particular has remained apparently unchanged for millions of years is no problem to the theory of evolution - if the organism is well adapted to its environment, then you'd expect it to remain unchanged.

"No known example of an information adding mutation"? Wouldn't bacterial resistance to antibiotics count as 'added information'?

[Zenlitened]

53. Well, you've really let your cards show now, haven't you?

Evolution arbitrarily picked as the real science?

What a profoundly ignorant statement. Either you have no real understanding of evolution theory, or you're here to push an agenda totally at odds with progressive ideals.

See ya.


Edited to add: Your statements in this post also show an alarming lack of understanding of how evolution works:

http://www.democraticunderground.com//discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3497694&mesg_id=3498020&page=

Read up on the evolution of cell membranes, for example, or the sheer numbers of organisms involved in achieving a single-cell reproducing organism "all in one throw." :eyes:

[parkening]

56. chew on post #54 for a while

then come back and tell me again how wonderfully scientific evolution is. Go ahead and look at #55 while you're at it.

[Zenlitened]

61. All of that has been addressed and explained a million times over.

And, no, I'm not going to take the time to explain it all to you. That's what libraries are foor, and search engines.

Seriously, hitting me with a bunch of fundie talking points? Hardly convincing that you're at all interested in scientific facts.

[liberal43110]

108. Anthropomorphic traits were not what the original poster was talking about

Anthropomorphic traits have NOTHING to do with the criticisms of intelligent design. The original poster did not claim that a designer had to have human qualities.

[WLKjr]

99. I believe it is beyond human comprehension n/t

[KlatooBNikto]

3. How can a design that leads to the creation of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld

not to mention Falwell, Robertson, Limbaugh and others be deemed intelligent?

[sybylla]

7. Bingo!

Thanks for that.

[KittyWampus]

4. No, It Really Doesn't Require A Designer. Consciousness/Intelligence

is NOT dependant on having a Locus.

And how does Intelligent Design occur without a "Being"?

Very simple, Intelligence is a STATE of Being.

Intelligence/Consciousness is the Primary State of Being or, in other words, the Root of all that exists.

Physical matter precipitates from Intelligence like rain from a cloud.

Nature has an inherent CAPACITY for Intelligence.

By the way, DU disallows DU'ers from calling other DU'ers out.

If you are too biased or confused to understand my simple point then either send me a personal message or respond to the thread I was posting in.

[bpilgrim]

6. i'm stll waiting

:hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3488961&mesg_id=3497540

peace

[Inland]

9. Then it's not a design.

Rain from a cloud--is the cloud "designing" rain, planning on rain? Does it have a choice whether to rain or not?

No, it just happens because that's the way clouds are. And to say the universe happens just because that's the way the universe is approaches the same level of sophistication. Therefore it isn't intelligent or design.

[Selteri]

23. Wow, that's... really off topic

Though I'm sure there are those who would claim ID in clouds as well, perhaps we should also attribute the winds to being concious when they're strong enough to take a hat off your head or flip your umbrella.

Anyone who's attributing every cloud to being designed by some inteligent creastor really needs help in other ways.

[Inland]

105. I was responding to a specific metaphor on the posters ID theory

So it was on topic.

[Zenlitened]

11. Well do yourself a favor and call it something else, would you?

'Intelligent Design' is something very specific developed for political reasons by american fundamentalist christians.

If what you're describing is something else entirely -- to the point that no designer is implied -- then for the sake of clarity choose another name for it.

That name's taken.

[Selteri]

24. The Fundy Christians took ID from those who believe we were seeded by

an alien race. There are a lot of those who beleive in such who are still moderately upset over that too though.

Fundy Chrisitans love to steal things that they think make them sound more reasonable. Look at Rush, he's stolen Truth and still has the unmitigated gaul to actually claim that if he doesn't say it that it's not important.

[GaYellowDawg]

15. This isn't coherent at all.

By locus, I assume you mean physical or corporeal presence. That doesn't make your argument work. If there is design, then it originates with a designer. It doesn't matter whether the designer is human or nonhuman, supreme or nonsupreme, corporeal or noncorporeal, or does or doesn't have a locus. It doesn't matter if intelligence is a localized phenomenon or the root of all that exists.

Design requires a designer. Period.

If physical matter precipitates from Intelligence, then there are these possibilities:

1. Physical matter precipitates from Intelligence without any sort of control from Intelligence. This is random precipitation. Therefore, there is no design.

2. Physical matter precipitates from Intelligence in a controlled fashion. The precipitation is nonrandom. Therefore, there is a design. Whomever/whatever decides the fashion in which matter precipitates is the designer.

This is neither confusion nor bias. This is reasoning.

I didn't call you out, either. Your handle wasn't in the thread title. I didn't call you any names. I didn't threaten you. DU states that "You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect." The corollary to that is that we're allowed to point out when we think that a post is untrue or factually incorrect. I pointed it out.

[parkening]

18. You older guys may be tired of me harping on this but...

You said: Nature has an inherent CAPACITY for Intelligence.

Where'd Nature come from?

[sui generis]

5. yep; even the phrase "irreducible complexity"

is not a valid test of anything and essentially throws out great tracts of scientific thought on the very topics of emergent complexity and information density.

More horseshit for the superstitious natives.

[parkening]

13. This is a nit-pick but

ID positing a designer versus requiring a designer is a difference without a distinction. "Posit" and "require" in this context mean virtually the same thing.

You've very effectively destroyed the straw man argument that IDers merely posit a designer for everything that we can't explain. IDers don't explain intelligent design w/o a designer. Your understanding of their position is a little muddled.

We see design around us everywhere and never question it. A computer, an automobile, a spoon, a stone tool---no one questions that these were designed by an intelligent being. Although, given enough time and random chance these could have arisen on their own, right? Right?! What? You don't think so? The simplest self-sustaining life form has a billion times more specific information and complexity than your computer and yet you say it arose by random chance.

[Toots]

17. Intelligence is learned

Computers are not random chance but they didn't happen overnight either. They "evolved". The first computer was a piece of string with knots in it. First life was amoeba

[parkening]

19. computer evolution

You'll agree with me that even the piece of string with knots in it had an Intelligent Designer, yah? And every other step in the "evolution" of the computer.

You said: First life was amoeba

Think on this: the first "amoeba" (to use your term) had to not only randomly constitute from non-living matter, it had to have the ability to reproduce itself---all in one try!!! Otherwise it had to start over from nothing again!!! To call the odds of this mind-boggling does not do it justice. Mathematicians have a word for this---it's called "impossible".

[Toots]

20. "it had to have the ability to reproduce itself---all in one try"

The Universe is absolutely teeming with life IMHO and yes what the human mind finds hard to grasp is actually the norm throughout the Cosmos. IMHO what you are saying is impossible, is far more credible and believable than some magic guy in the clouds playing with life. Now if you want to say as Christian Scientists say that all life is actually mental (created in the mind) then I suppose that mind could be considered God. Even in that scenerio though evolution plays a huge role.

[parkening]

22. I'm not sure if I know what you're saying that I'm saying...

The "all in one try" part? Yeah I think that's impossible too! But necessary if natural evolution (no ID) is to be true.

No one I know or respect purports that life is just mental. And I don't know why evolution would have to play a role if it was. If it was purely mental then it would not have to follow any of the natural laws that we observe.

[LibertyorDeath]

86. The answer to all your ? re ID are right here in this one sentence

"More horseshit for the superstitious natives."

Thanks to sui generis for summing it up so succinctly.


but what came before the horseshit.

[Hugin]

119. That's easy! OATS! ;) n/t

[Toots]

14. It would seem quite "Intelligent" to design an evolutionary system.

Without evolution things would be stagnant and unchanging like conservatism. God wants better for his world. God wants a Progressive and ever changing world and that is why he created time... Change is the only known constant and God wished that to be so..Time and evolution are one and the same...Things evolve "Get Over It"

[parkening]

16. Many, if not most,

IDers are indeed evolution adherents (like Michael Behe for instance). They have merely come to a spot where random chance and time cannot explain certain phenomena they see.

I'm not one of them, mind you, just making the point.

[Selteri]

21. Personally I am undecided about intelligent Design; BUT

and that is a huge BUT - that is because I don't believe in coincidences and the repetition of certain repetitions in nature are too consistent to not suspect that there is something more than what evolution should easily account for.

The Phi ratio appears in nature in so many aspects that it's impossible to discount, everything from cells, leaves, shells, vertebrae, bones. It's the magic number of are for 'beauty' as well. The Fibonacci Numbers are an example of the numbers 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 (etc), they are called the 'golden' numbers or section.

Now that being said, it could be that it is the number evolution has chosen to follow because of some bio-mechanical tendency or something and be a pure coincidence. Evolution itself is something I also believe in, both societally and biologically. We can trace genetically through tendril DNA our lineage all the way back to a female in Africa so even minor evolution can be traced from the minor physiological differences between the various races that came from adjusting to living in the environment that we chose to settle in. The same applies to animals through simple observation of how they have adjusted to be able to eat and survive in the wild.

As such I am undecided on natural evolution vs intelligent design; but, that is a personal opinion because I personally have trouble believing in broad coincidences. I also have difficulty believing in any of the religious because none of them seem willing to actually accept of embrace either science or critical thinking. For all I know it could be that we as a planet were seeded and this recurrence of numbers and patterns is a reflection or it could just be that because of a single step in evolution finding that ratio to be so affective that every evolutionary step that has followed has used it because of a genetic predisposition.

Either way, I'm keeping my mind open to all possibilities, but there is no reason that I can divine that ID should be pushed forward as a scientific theory and agree that it has no place in a scientific course for how we developed on this planet.

Rant Alert section -

Regardless of if we were designed by an alien, 'God' or by evolutionary tendencies is going to be an argument that we will be discussing until we either MEET the aliens or God that made us or until we can prove beyond a shadow of any doubt that evolution just likes to follow mathematical tendencies for some reason that as yet is unable to be explained by traditional methodology. Those that say we are influenced and made by aliens have some very unusual theories that are quite a bit out there and hard to truly fathom. Those religions that refuse to even consider science, Judaism, Christianity, Muslim-ism, and all the others which refuse to consider that the world is older than their book states. Many of these religions use their books for enough atrocities and evil to make the Nazi movement to look as though they were amateurs. The Holy book these three religions have been based upon have words that if published today outside of those books would put the person on a terrorist watch-list faster than I can snap my fingers (Count how many death sentences you can find in Leviticus and how many of them you've already earned in your life!) Many of these religions and others I have failed to mention are just as blindly where they have members unwilling to consider that the explanation made by people that have been gone for a very long time were reaching for an explanation and meaning in their lives just as strongly as we search for the same answers in our lives.

Intelligent design doesn't belong in a biology class, it belongs in a critical thinking class, alongside many other things that we are taught. There is much more out there than out modern science and our own hubris can explain and that must not just be thrown aside for lack of an explanation, but considered that there might be something more when there is a body of evidence to leave at least enough doubt to allow for the question.

Questions are our greatest tool, closing the mind to any possibility is bad science and science has in some ways become bad, condemning things as badly as Religion has in the past and present. We all must allow ourselves to keep an open mind, but that doesn't mean we should teach our children something as scientific when there is no attached proof lest we attack their minds to make them small.

[parkening]

26. I like how you think Selteri

mostly, just a couple things...

I like how your mind is open to new ideas.

Yet you assume that evolution is true--to wit--"...it has no place in a scientific course for how we developed on this planet."

I agree with you that ID belongs in the critical thinking class (would to God that such a class existed). It belongs there alongside evolution and creation and whoever else wants to be considered.

You make a logical fallacy in basing your feelings about the major religions' texts based on the actions of their believers. You need to ask if the believers are acting in accordance with the text or contrary to it.

Anyway, keep it up, Selteri.

[Selteri]

65. Ah, not completely what I meant.

I assume evoltuion is a PART of the equation, even in the pat 30 years we have evolved societally and there are some instances of minor evolution happening all the time. Evolution can be seen in baby steps through multiple generations in tough conditions, even in plants, but we don't see any leaps so it doesn't seem to be the only answer.

Glad you agree with my on the ID and Critical thinking, I think critical thinking should be a required class that starts about the same time puberty starts if not a little before.

I haven't meant to make a fallacy from the texts and the actions, I had been trying to draw an example. Many believers act contrary to their own religion and even more pick and choose for their arguments and have for as long as we've been around to think at all.

Great points though, I should have tried to be a bit more clear.

[Lars39]

25. I'll explain it:

http://www.kcfs.org/Fliers_articles/Wedge.html

THE WEDGE STRATEGY
CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE & CULTURE
INTRODUCTION

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. 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

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.

Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions....more at:http://www.kcfs.org/Fliers_articles/Wedge.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Center for Renewal of Science & Culture(now called Center for Science and Culture) is a subsidiary of the Discovery Institute, a right wing think tank, funded in part by Howard F. Ahmanson Jr, a Christian Dominionist. The entire push for Intelligent Design comes from the right wing religious wackos, of which there seems to be a few here at DU, too.

[parkening]

28. Religious wacko here

interestingly you mention Darwin, Marx and Freud as great materialist thinkers of the nineteenth century. Marx and Freud are on the ash-heap of history. Who's next?

[Lars39]

30. You didn't understand the post;

The Wedge Strategy was developed by Phillip Johnson,
and is currently being promoted by the Center for Science & Culture,
a subsidiary of the Discovery Institute(a right wing think tank).
Intelligent Design is a strategy to get evolution booted from public schools
by the Dominionist/Reconstructionist crowd. A lot of people that are kinda hazy
on science are getting swept up in the movement without knowing
the background of the folks pushing the ID movement.

[parkening]

34. I understood it

I was making a subsidiary observation. I'm not hazy on science and I kinda like ID.

[Lars39]

39. So you're OK with furthering right wing Dominionist goals?

[parkening]

46. I'm only interested

in the truth, regardless of its genesis or proponents.

[Bridget Burke]

47. Good topic for a barroom debate.

Just keep it out of the public schools, OK?

[Avalux]

50. If you respected scientific theory and had a full understanding

you would NOT be proposing Intelligent Design be taught in science class. The idea is preposterous. Maybe a theology class along with creationism; that would be fine.

I have said it before and I'll say it again - evolution has been the sole scientific theory of the origin of life for 150 years for a reason. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE TO KNOCK IT DOWN - NOTHING TO DISPROVE IT.

[parkening]

55. I didn't propose

to teach ID in science class. My previous post agreed with Selteri that it (and evolution) ought to be taught in critical thinking class.

Save science class for actual science.

Can anyone here actually give me an example of evolution in action. Give me one example of information being added to the genome anywhere in the universe.

I've given examples of areas of extreme difficulty for the evolutionary theory to explain. Take one of those and show how evolution so wonderfully explains it.

There's been a lot of elephant hurling here without any facts.

I'll wait.

[Avalux]

57. Here's an example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x5742

And by the way, scientific theory doesn't have to be proven, or recreated in a lab or natural setting. It just has to be disproven, and it (evolution) hasn't been yet.

[parkening]

67. evolution is unfalsifiable

if something contradicts it, it gets changed.

Take the 100,000,000 year old sea turtles that are virtually unchanged today. Evolution demands that there be differences over these vast time periods but there's not. The explanation is that the sea turtle found a niche that it no longer needed to evolve. BZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTT. Natural evolution doesn't know when it's reached a peak people.

[Avalux]

69. Oh please

You are reaching. Do you not have a comment on my example? You asked for one and I provided it.

[Hugin]

74. BS klaxon...

"Take the 100,000,000 year old sea turtles that are virtually unchanged today."

We don't know if they're "virtually unchanged" as we have no
samples of 100,000,000 y/o turtle DNA. It might be very different.

Pick a different example.

[markh]

80. Evolution doesn't demand change

Evolution doesn't demand that species change over time. Successful mutations survive and prosper, unsuccessful ones do not get the opportunity. Mutations on the Sea Turtle have certainly been occurring for the last 100,000,000 years and will continue. They just haven't lucked into the right combination that proves more survivable than the existing model. Sea Turtles are more an argument for Evolution than ID to me, since Intelligent Design by it's very nature tries to remove the element of luck from the equation, whereas Evolution requires it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. You appear to be arguing against Lamarckism

"Evolution demands that there be differences over these vast time periods but there's not."

Lamarck thought that - 200 years ago. It might help if you updated you idea of the theory of evolution to Darwin - or, even better, all the scientists who followed him.

[GaYellowDawg]

100. WRONG!!

This is wrong on a number of counts.

1. You have no idea whether sea turtles are virtually unchanged from 100 million years ago to today. All that's preserved in fossils is the bone structure. There could be any amount of difference in soft tissues, in behavior, in development, anything besides bones. That's a hairball statement.

2. Evolution doesn't demand differences. The only thing that evolution dictates is that in order to survive, organisms must carry a combination of traits that gives them a competitive advantage in the current environment. If the environment doesn't change and a better competitor doesn't come along, there's no change.

3. Evolution is VERY falsifiable. The advent of molecular biology, for instance, could have completely wrecked evolution. Why? Well, what if corn was more closely related genetically to man than chimpanzees? That would have completely wrecked evolution. Instead, it confirmed it.

What if every different species had a structurally distinct protein that carried out similar functions? Evolution would be wrecked there, too. Instead, you see proteins with very similar structures carrying out similar functions in different organisms, and the more common the descent, the more proteins in common. That's a confirmation.

4. You don't have a good idea about how science works. Science constantly fine-tunes currently held theories. If there are enough major problems with a theory, then the theory is thrown over in favor of something with greater explanatory power.

5. You don't understand how scientists work. If there was a legitimate theory that could supplant evolution, there's not a scientist out there that wouldn't love to be the one to put it forth and get his/her name in the textbooks. That's the ULTIMATE in scientific currency. To a scientist, there would be no greater thing than to have his/her name be a pillar of science like Darwin or Watson/Crick or Einstein. It's a measure of the strength of the theory of evolution that it hasn't been overturned.

[Hugin]

101. Number 3 is a *great* point...

I suspect all of this "Intelligent Design" hooplah is
a smoke screen for blowing it on stem-cell research.

[Birthmark]

68. Information increase

"Can anyone here actually give me an example of evolution in action. Give me one example of information being added to the genome anywhere in the universe."

There are several examples here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

There are even links so that one may read in detail. For instance: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4463

Enjoy!

[Hugin]

76. I was going to say...

Bacteria swap DNA with each other all the time.

That's where different strains of disease come from... With
IDer's in charge it's noooo wonder we didn't have any flu
vaccine last fall.

Sheesh.

[Avalux]

78. Please read my post in the science forum -

I'd love to have your opinion. Thanks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x5742

[Selteri]

82. My personal proposal on evolution is that...

micro-evolution should be taught in science class

full evolution belongs in critical thinking

There are the differences.

Micro-evolution has been proven, it's how we develope to an environmental change or perish.

THe Galapagos Islands are one example of it; but, the best human example of microevolution is respresented in a few things

Take a family from a hot area Mexican, Italian, Greek, Vietnamese or Hawiaan.

Move them to Alaska, Siberia or the south pole.

They'll freeze their butts off, not be well adjusted to the cold and likely will never completely adjust. For this Posit let us assume that they only breed with other warmlanders for their children and then their grandchildren. Most of the grandchildren will be much more cold tolerant than their grandparents are because of the need for their bodies to learn to adjust. Some of their traits will change very slightly in order to better defend against the cold, their bodies would also adjust in other small ways by being in the cold environment.

This micro-evolution is the evolution that Darwin proved in his theory of evolution.

Full Evolution though, we haven't been able to prove, this requires at the moment the leap of faith. It makes the assumption that there are jumps made for whatever reason, wether it's to get to a better food source or defend against a predator. What we know about full evolution is that is liked to retry the same things. The Rhino is a great example, the modern Rhino has ansestors that are larger than an elephant and smaller than a dog that looked just like the Rhino of today. The same with the cat species, the designs keep cycling in the fossil record but these seem to be jumps without an apparent explanation.

Hence - Full evolution belongs in Critical Thinking
Micro Evolution belongs in science.

[Hugin]

85. I see your point...

But, "punctuated equilibrium" has always been a minority among
evolutionary thought.

I personally subscribe to it due to the fact mere random
differences in the DNA of highly complex creatures would
lead to major change only after huge huge time spans.

Like for instance the 4.5 Billion years before the Cambrian
Explosion. Then look at the remarkable changes made in the
highly complex species in the 500 Million years (or so)
since then.

Punctuated Equilibrium -- says that intermittent periods
of stress cause greater speciation. I can buy that.

Ask me sometime how I've reconciled my spiritual beliefs
with Evolution.

[muriel_volestrangler]

87. What is the mechanism by which you think the descendants will adapt?

You say their bodies will learn to adjust. In what way will the grandchildren's bodies adapt better than their grandparents? Do you think this adaption would then in some way be passed onto their own descendants - even if they moce back to a warm climate?

'Full Evolution' does not assume that jumps are made. It assumes that genes are changed one base at a time. It does assume that there are thousands or millions of years for it to happen in, and that we have found fossils for only a very few of the individual animals that have ever existed.

[Birthmark]

89. Oh, please!

Micro-evolution has been proven, it's how we develope to an environmental change or perish."
Nothing in science is "proven." It is very well established, but not proven. So is "macroevolution." They are the same thing. Claiming that they are different is akin to claiming that 2+2+2=6; but that 3*2 doesn't = 6. It's ludicrous! All that's needed is time.

Unless someone can find some "stop evolving" mechanism, then there is no reason to consider them any differently.

[GaYellowDawg]

95. No, no, no, NO!!!

For this Posit let us assume that they only breed with other warmlanders for their children and then their grandchildren. Most of the grandchildren will be much more cold tolerant than their grandparents are because of the need for their bodies to learn to adjust. Some of their traits will change very slightly in order to better defend against the cold, their bodies would also adjust in other small ways by being in the cold environment.

That is Lamarckianism. That is NOT how evolution works. The children and grandchildren will not be more cold tolerant "because of any need." THIS IS NOT HOW EVOLUTION WORKS. EVOLUTION IS NOT A RESPONSE TO A NEED.

Evolution occurs when an organism has an advantageous phenotype BECAUSE OF RANDOM CHANCE. Let's say that large noses are an advantage in a cold environment because the air going through them is warmer when it hits their lungs. Those children that have larger noses BY RANDOM CHANCE will have a greater chance at reproducing based on natural selection alone. The children won't automatically be born with larger noses as a response. IT IS RANDOM CHANCE.

Evolution occurs when a trait confers an advantage BY RANDOM CHANCE. That trait could be present in the genome already. It could arise by mutation. IT IS NOT A RESPONSE. Are we clear?

[Hugin]

97. That's what I was trying to say...

However, I would add it's Random Mutation paired with an
Environmental Stressor.

Without an advantage in it's environment a mutation is at best
a null-effect and at worst non-viable.

Sorry, the gradualist will never convince me.

Evolution is holistic.

Also, evolution tends to bury it's mistakes. Ask any
Paleontologist.

[XemaSab]

124. Here are some examples:

Viruses swap RNA all the time, with each other and with their hosts. There are virus genes in the human genome. Flu viruses are very good at swapping RNA, and that's why we have to have a new flu vaccine every year.

Some bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics within the time antibiotics were created. At first, antibiotics worked very well, but now we have resistant strains.

Insects, too, have evolved resistance to pesticides since humans started using pesticides.

Humans are able to take plants and breed them together and get superior food plants from plants that weren't very yummy to begin with. The final plant product in many cases is nothing like the original. Corn, for example, has been changed radically over the last few thousand years, with humans acting as the selecting agent. Most food plants are so radically changed from the original plant that they are different species.

Dog breeds are another example of human-caused evolutionary pressure resulting in extraordinary variation within a species. This is an example of microevolution.

Dogs and food plants were "designed" by humans according to the selective pressure of human whims.

The book "Beak of the Finch" is the tale of a group of researchers who catalogued every single member of a finch species on the Galapagos. They repeatedly caught and measured the beaks of the finches, and they found that the size of the finch beaks changed over time in response to drought.

Are these sufficient examples?

[johnaries]

126. Have you heard of the Flu?

It mutates and evolves every year into new strains. What about Bacteria that are becoming more Anti-Bacterial resistant, because of Evolution. Whay about insect Pests, that are becoming more resistant to Insecticides, because of Evolution.

Your "proof" is happening every day, everywhere around you!

OPEN YOUR FRICKING EYES!

"there are none so blind as those who will not see" - Jesus.

[Zenlitened]

33. Well, the first step is admitting you have a problem.

LOL! :D

[parkening]

35. You're killin' me, Zen

HA!

[Zenlitened]

128. Well, you've got a tombstone,,,,

... but I don't know that I can take credit for "killing" you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com//discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=120603


What gave parkening away? Well, the detailed knowledge of fundy criticisms of evolution, coupled with gross ignorance about what science does and does not address on the topic of evolution. That pretty much laid the cards open, for me. Someone who clearly has the ability to research an issue... but researched only one side, steadfastly avoiding all knowledge of the other.

So long, stealther. If people like you spent as much time appreciating the true beauty and wonder of the natural world, rather than suffocating yourselves in tired old myths, you'd be happier people. And the world would be a happier place.

[Toots]

51. Well the first paragraph is quite easy to refute

"The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences."

This is out and out false.
Our first evidence of representative Democracy comes from Greece as well as Human Rights and free enterprise and especially arts and sciences.
They believed in Jupiter, Venus, Mars, etc. etc. Human beings were not created in the image of their Gods. Some of their Gods were half man half beast Pan for instance Some had the head of a bull and body of a man. Some had wings on their feet. This first opening statement of theirs is patently false. So I would imagine everything else is suspect as well.

[megatherium]

38. A book recommendation: Finding Darwin's God, by Kenneth Miller.

Miller is a well-known biologist and textbook writer who is a Roman Catholic. He explains why ID is poor theology and bad science. He rips Michael Behe's lungs out.

[libertypirate]

62. ID "evoled" from that 7 days to create the earth story before anyone...

was alive to see it.

Science without observation is guessing.

Guessing something science can't prove means an observation that can't be made must be assumed.

Assuming an observation would exist if you had the means to observe it; well that's belief.

And just so you know assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

Taking someone's word that a voice in their head told them the story of how the planet came to be, is assuming they are not crazy.

[Birthmark]

64. I haven't read the entire thread

So excuse me if someone has already made these points.

1. Evolution is a fact. It occurs and has been observed.

2. The Theory of Evolution is the current explanation of how the fact of evolution occurs.

3. Intelligent Design is NOT science for the simple reason that virtually no papers supporting ID are even submitted to scientific journals. The few that have been submitted and published have been shot down very quickly afterward for very good reasons.

4. The Theory of Evolution is not sacred to scientists. If someone has a better explanation and can support it with acceptable evidence...well, there's a Nobel Prize and scientific immortality in it for them.

[ComerPerro]

83. Space aliens

its the only way ID can work without using a God or Deity.

[Hugin]

88. LOL!

That's what my Mom thinks... By golly!

[Avalux]

92. And it's every bit as likely

as some old man with a white beard sitting up in the clouds playing puppets with all of us. Dontcha think?

[Hugin]

93. Very true...

Actually, statistically speaking, considering the size, age, and
density of the Universe it's probably *more* likely. ;)

[ComerPerro]

109. Its the only way to expain it

ID supporters insist that you can teach ID without having to use a God or Deity as the creator.

In that case, you are left with two options: Nothing, or some external creator.

When it comes down to it, there is no academic or scientific difference between telling people that God laid out the "Intelligent Design" and telling them that aliens did it.

You can't even come close to proving either assertion.

[Hugin]

110. Here's what I say...

My personal opinions on the matter shall remain personal...

I'd just like to point out to those Creationist/IDers. If
you read the Bible in Genesis. Adam and Eve are the only
people it talks about covering/hiding their creation/reproduction
facilities. God apparently didn't... God's methods are all
out there for us to see and learn about.

[ComerPerro]

111. I'm sorry, I'm not following you

[Hugin]

113. They covered their goodies with fig leaves...

For some reason they were embarrassed of where they came
from. No such action by God.

I still agree with your Alien theory though. You're right,
it makes as much sense and there's certainly as much evidence.

[Hugin]

115. Ah, never mind...

The newly minted ID BS is merely an argument.

[ComerPerro]

116. well, its not my alien theory. LOL

I think my misunderstanding came in your connection of the reproductive organs to the creation. I wasn't thinking "creation" in the same sense that you were, apparently.

Are you saying that man inherently knows to be ashamed of his nudity, therefore of his creation?

[Hugin]

118. Close...

"Are you saying that man inherently knows to be ashamed of his nudity, therefore of his creation?"

Closer...

"Man is ashamed of his ability to create and hides it. God doesn't."

"God isn't ashamed of how he creates... It's there for us to learn
if we so choose."

It all goes back to the Tree-o-life and the Fruit-o-Knowledge.

Anyhow, my comment has spun wildly out of control.

Last words God said on the subject were, "You bought the farm,
you plow it."

Back to the Alien Seed Theory.

[ComerPerro]

120. Cool. I guess I just wasn't with you on the wording

[Hugin]

121. Who is!

:shrug:

[Toots]

122. I never considered that line of thought.What a dilemma that must cause them

Why would they hide their genitals? They were not born and they had no idea what their genitals were for except waste. Why cover themselves??????? How did eating an apple/fruit apply to the genitals??

[Hugin]

130. It's bothered me for some time Toots...

I try not to get absorbed by such thoughts... I generally
write it off as yet another undescribed hypocrisy of
religion.

But, I'm no expert.

[librechik]

96. perhaps we designed ourselves

and are in an eternal, continual unconscious state of being the universe? That also presumes no outside "other" or deity...

[Hugin]

98. I've heard that theory somewhere before...

Seems kind of intelligent to work toward our own advantage
as a species... Doesn't it?

[XemaSab]

125. The thing that makes ID a crock

is that it's anti-science. If there's something like a flagellum where it's not instantly obvious how it evolved, ID says "Well, a designer made it," and that's the end of the inquiry. It prompts a very know-nothing view of the universe.

"Why are there so many flycatcher species?" (Roughly 550 in the world)

"Duh, I dunno, God likes flycatchers so He made a lot?"

It makes "God did it" an instantly acceptable answer for any question.

There are Mysteries in the world, and Mysteries in biology, but a lot of things that seemed to be Mysteries a few years ago (like lightning and earthquakes), we've figured out pretty well, and we've got ideas about what they are and what causes them that most people are satisfied with.

ID seems to be a step back into the cave.

[Heyo]

129. It all comes down to the "first cause" for me...

As we all know "every action has an equal and opposite reaction"...

This means, basically, the rule of "cause and effect" that is so familiar to us...

Every event was preceded/caused by a previous event, which in turn had another event behind that one.

According to Newton, the simple event of my finger tapping this X key, can be traced all the way back to the beginning of the universe in a chain of cause and effect. You can just keep asking "What happened.... well what happened before that?..... okay what happened before that?.. what about before that?..." and eventually you will get to the "big bang" or something similar.

Now with quantum theory, and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which introduces randomness and chance into the mix, that certainly muddies the waters a bit. It changes the scenario from point particles and exact moments in time into wave functions spread out over small areas of space and time, but given that wave functions of particles collapse when they are interacted with, cause and effect basically still holds in terms of the evolution of the universe.

The universe is so vast, and the processes that take place within it so enormous compared to the size of particles and the areas of space and time occupied by single wave functions, C&E&E hold as you go back, until you go *way* back. It definitely gets a bit fuzzy when you go back to, say, when the universe was close to a
Plank length in size, about 10^-30 meters, or .000000000000000000000000000001 meters give or take, and was an age measured in femtoseconds or less. Anything we try to speculate as to what goes on in such an environment is just that, speculation. Newtonian physics and even relativity both break down at that point and whether or not quantum theory holds up, only God knows. (I mean that almost literally, in a sense.)

There are several aspects of cosmology and physics that to me speak to me of some sort of a divine creator or all powerful force or entity which created it all, or maybe more likely just set the chain off from the beginning.

Hawking said something very interesting, and you really have to stew on it for a while to realize the profoundness of it. He posed the question: "Why does the universe go through all the bother of existing?"

Is spacetime a repeating loop? We don't even fully understand the whole of the geometry of spacetime. Is it curved, even to the point where parallel lines will eventually meet? Is it flat and infinite in all directions? And how can time go back forever with no beginning?

Can we look out into space forever, or could it be that the most distant thing in the universe you could possibly look out at is the back of your head? It all speaks to the geometry of spacetime, and hence, to any possible end or beginning. (since space and time are intrinsically linked)

How can anything have no beginning? Why are the masses, charge, and spins of electrons and protons and quarks, etc. all exactly what they are? Why is the gravitational constant exactly what it is?

What is the force carrier for "dark energy" or could this really be an intrinsic property of the vacuum itself? Or, is it.."the hand of God" if you will, which has "spread out the heavens before you"... or in the process of doing so? (being that dark energy seems to be driving an acceleration of expansion. Not making claims here, just throwing out some material for minds to chew on)

Maybe we will never know these things, but we must also recognize that "Because... well... it just IS that way" is not a sufficient answer.

We must keep searching for the truth, until we find the alternate spacial dimension where the left socks go that get lost in the wash.

I think that the work that will be done at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Switzerland, (not sure if it is finished being built yet) which may bring us closer to "God" or at least closer to "the wiring under the boards" of reality. It should be able to accelerate particles to energies of about 7 TeV, (7 trillion electron volts) or to just a minuscule fraction shy of velocity c. (the speed of light) At those kinds of energies, we will be able to probe deeper than we've been before, possibly even to the point of realizing some internal structure of nucleons and quark arrangement within them. Maybe God is inside protons? :shrug:

:dunce:

regards,
Heyo

on edit: typos, spelling, misnamed the accelerator