Big Bang VI, ID vs. BB?

Question

One poster theorized that intelligent design is as complex a theory as the big bang. I agree and submit that intelligent design may be even more complex because after science has gone down the rabbit trail of the big bang they are immersed in the reality of intelligent design. This is a kind of situation of not being able to see the forest for the trees. Should not science be as open to the theory of intelligent design as to any other theory to be intellectually honest? From human reason, can any philosophy within reason, stop short of explanation at the theory of the big bang and not go beyond theorizing that the complexities of the natural world defy theorems that offer only random chance and creation of everything from the building block of nothingness. Is mankind to be so shallow or is this as far as human reason can progress, only within our own intellect and not beyond to an infinite intelligence that theists call God.

Answer 1

"For this they are WILLFULLY IGNORANT, that the world that then was perished in the flood..." Paraphrased, I believe from 1 Peter. Bottom line, they hold to a philosophy that blinds them to explaining all things in terms of materialism. This is as if to say, in the end, even though we don't know it now, we are confident that we can explain everything by extrapolation from what we observe. This takes every bit the faith, and then some, which is required of the Christian.

Contrary to what one poster has suggested, we can deduce from the hypothesis of a highly intelligent designer that the universe should be reflective of the intelligence. That being the case, we should predict a well ordered, well functioning universe. Incidentally, the other useful thing which comes of this theory is a means of growing in knowlege of God, whereas atheism simply blinds one to the evidence which is plain as the miraculous nose on their faces.

Tom

Answer 2

Science involves gathering of empirical evidence to make reliable predictions and manipulations. There is no evidence of a creator. Whether or not science explains that is irrelevant. Believing in a god simply because science has a few holes in it is called "the god of the gaps," and it is a logical fallacy. Anything could fill that gap. To say that it's one thing when it could be anything is a fallacy.

Reality doesn't defy random chance, you just don't understand the law of averages. If everyone on every planet in the universe flipped a coin constantly since the beginning of this universe, eventually someone would get a million heads in a row. The earth was the one apparent winner, but it's not that special, because everyone else lost.

There are also cyclic universe models that refute the claim that the universe arose from a void, try reading up on the string theory. Quantum fluctuation also allows something to come from nothing, so that argument is rendered invalid.

Intelligent design is not a theory. Don't call it that. Don't pretend that it is. There's just as much evidence that the disembodied brain of toucan Sam created the universe as there is for the Christian sky-daddy. In science, the word theory implies evidence from the real world. There is no evidence for your sky-daddy.

Answer 3

Do you even know what some of the claims ID is making and how absurd they are?

The Church insisted that everything revolved around the Earth and it wasn't until 1992 that the Chuch pardoned Galileo for persecuting him for stating otherwise. So you have scientists like Ptolemy, in order to keep the Church happy, inventing a ridiculously complex convoluted system whereby things could still all just revolve around the earth. So much for complexity. To this day, the term "Ptolemic" means to confuse, to obfuscate. There is an old saying in science that something can look quite beautiful and make perfect sense and still be dead wrong. Physicist Rabin once said, when some student proposed something really idiotic "That's so bad it's not even wrong."

What makes you think science is not open to new theories? I assure you it is. It's just that once it can be shown that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, it is absurd from someone to make the argument that it does. Or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. That's so absurd it's not even wrong.

Answer 4

The problem with the design hypothesis is that it cannot explain the origin of complexity. Presupposing a prior greater complexity only makes a bigger problem or leads to infinite regression.

To be honest I agree with you that just saying there was a single big bang which was the result of random chance is not a viable solution either. That does not solve the complexity issue either.

The only viable solution to the complexity problem is that reality as a whole is profoundly simple. This requires that our universe is just one of an infinite number of realities and that our universe is selected by our existence. Reality as a whole must be simple otherwise you need to ask why is it not otherwise. And there can be no reason because reality as a whole includes everything so no explaination outside it is then possible.

Given that reality as a whole is simple, how does the complexity we observe come about. The answer is obvious, our existence selects a locally complex region from the simple whole. Only in locally complex subsets of reality can we exist.

How does the simple whole come about you ask? It must be necessary since there is nothing external to it. What could that be? What do we know that is necessarily true and tautologically simple? I only know one thing: mathematics.

Answer 5

We are. As soon as you have some evidence for it, you are welcome to submit it to one of the several hundred journals and your evidence will go through the peer review process to make sure that the evidence was gathered in a valid way and that the conclusions are consistent with the evidence.

If that is true it will be published and other scientists will be obliged to retest and submit verifying or competing papers. That is how it works. The problem you guys have is that you don't really have any evidence so it NEVER passes peer review. You need to realize that a journal would LOVE to publish this. There is even a case where an editor skimped on the peer review process and set a paper for publication. It leaked and the journal had to pull the whole issue to preserve their standing, and the editor was fired. They WANT to publish Earth shattering research, but it has to be based on science.

Answer 6

The concept of "Intelligent Design" gives religion a bad name. Of course religious people believe that god created the world. However, ID is a naive, childish, foolish attempt to pretend that god can be encapsulated in a scientific-sounding concept so that religious weirdos can try to impose themselves on science. ID has nothing at all to do with science, and has less merit in a scientific context than religious dogma. Anyone who believes in ID is desperate, foolish, and non-scientific. If you want to support something as stupid as ID, and would like to see equal time for ID in schools, then perhaps you would like to see religious leaders give equal time to evolution, and to all other potentially more valid religions, such as the FSM.

Answer 7

No, actually, the entire theory of ID is 'god did it'. They can make no predictions and do no science based on that, since it's entirely not useful, whereas big bang theory IS useful.

Science will be happy to listen to ID as soon as they manage to come up with a coherent argument or submit a paper for publication. But they've been too busy with their PR campaign to do any actual research, according to their website.

Answer 8

ID relies on the premise that things are so complicated they must have been designed by an intelligent supreme being.

Science relies on using evidence.

So until evidence of a designer is presented, there is no scientific basis.

Or to put it another way, if I walk up to a chalkboard on which a complex math/physics equasion is written, the ID approach is basically looking at it and saying, "No! That's too hard! It must have been magic!"

Answer 9

i don't comprehend your fact and singularity theory in any respect and maximum of the archives you're sharing seems to come again from everywhere approximately no longer something consistent . It basically seems a jumble of you have heard yet yet to comprehend. Now that reported God vs super Bang. evaluate for as quickly as basically this. If there's a god and god desperate to create by employing imploding or exploding something Say an atom or something even smaller, and reported god then created super Bang. is this a threat that the two could be actual? The something from no longer something theory seems to greater healthful the two god and massive Bang different than in that theory super Band could have had to come again from God fairly than it basically being a fluke of nature. have you ever yet to completely comprehend nature yet. i've got no longer nor have I yet to comprehend god or the logic of that life. So the place does that carry us? Nowhere ok i'm executed

Answer 10

ID isn't science, it is merely the assertion that if we cannot explain a phenomenon using the scientific method or the tools of science. Then we need to redefine science to include the supernatural so that some people can claim science for their religious idiocy. ID is nothing more than a scam.