NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been posting off and on numerous threads about two completely differing doctrines: Evolution and Intelligent Design.

now, this is just an argument where scientists and atheists chomp at the bit to argue their points against their god-fearing rivals? nope. there have been many secular scientists that have chronicled their studies of intelligent design, only to become believers of it, and there are people that have evaluated their beliefs to realize that they do not believe in intelligent design. So why are we drawing a line in the sand?

I was reading a very interesting book a couple of years back... Fingerprint of God was the title. A seemingly stale reinterpretation of faith, judging by the cover, no? The book itself, though, is about studying certain scientific factors that played into the creation of the Earth and determining whether or not intelligent design did or did not happen. The numbers in the book found that it is mathematically impossible for all of the elements that created the Earth to happen in the same instance.

However, my question to everyone is: Is there a middle ground between intelligent design and evolution?

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/gtfogrowswearybullshitptu8.jpg

Evolution VS ID
The Rematch
This time, it's personal

I've been posting off and on numerous threads about two completely differing doctrines: Evolution and Intelligent Design.

now, this is just an argument where scientists and atheists chomp at the bit to argue their points against their god-fearing rivals? nope. there have been many secular scientists that have chronicled their studies of intelligent design, only to become believers of it, and there are people that have evaluated their beliefs to realize that they do not believe in intelligent design. So why are we drawing a line in the sand?

I was reading a very interesting book a couple of years back... Fingerprint of God was the title. A seemingly stale reinterpretation of faith, judging by the cover, no? The book itself, though, is about studying certain scientific factors that played into the creation of the Earth and determining whether or not intelligent design did or did not happen. The numbers in the book found that it is mathematically impossible for all of the elements that created the Earth to happen in the same instance.

However, my question to everyone is: Is there a middle ground between intelligent design and evolution?

My answer to your question, from my personal beliefs, is yes. Why couldn't god (or whatever higher intellegince you may belive in) use evolution to his purposes? Or create, and then allow evolution to happen, or a little of both? That is the short, 3 am, near incoherent version. Sometime I may be pressed to actually coherently, and reasonably, explain.

My answer to your question, from my personal beliefs, is yes. Why couldn't god (or whatever higher intellegince you may belive in) use evolution to his purposes? Or create, and then allow evolution to happen, or a little of both? That is the short, 3 am, near incoherent version. Sometime I may be pressed to actually coherently, and reasonably, explain.

which is, coincidentally, the conclusion that i came to...

the 1:41 am, caffeinated semi-coherent version

Yes. The two can find common ground.

Intelligent Design, as currently presented, is just creationism repackaged. It is purely based upon faith, and has no valid claim to accuracy or to science. But it doesn't have to be that way.

A revamped Intelligent Design, with the idea of presenting a concept of direction in evolution, from an unknown source and means, and towards an unknown goal, COULD be a valid scientific hypothesis, and something science would have to seriously consider.

It would still be suffering from the simple fact that there is no evidence for this concept, but it would still be a valid hypothesis, for which evidence could be searched without the scientific community considering you either a crank or an idiot.

This horse has been beaten to death ... I suggest we drop it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7I73DNguRI

Yes. The two can find common ground.

Intelligent Design, as currently presented, is just creationism repackaged. It is purely based upon faith, and has no valid claim to accuracy or to science. But it doesn't have to be that way.

A revamped Intelligent Design, with the idea of presenting a concept of direction in evolution, from an unknown source and means, and towards an unknown goal, COULD be a valid scientific hypothesis, and something science would have to seriously consider.

It would still be suffering from the simple fact that there is no evidence for this concept, but it would still be a valid hypothesis, for which evidence could be searched without the scientific community considering you either a crank or an idiot.

there is an evidence for such a theory... its presented in a novel called The Fingerprint of God (inauspicious name, i know, but ill summarize)

theres a part where it refers to work that albert einstein did on finding out how fast the universe expanded. he figured that, in order for there to be an infinite universe, the edge of the universe would have to expand at a constate rate.

he found the universe expands at a deteriorating rate, which would suggest a finite starting point for the universe.

i would love to quote it, but the book is buried somewhere deep in my closet.

there is an evidence for such a theory... its presented in a novel called The Fingerprint of God (inauspicious name, i know, but ill summarize)

theres a part where it refers to work that albert einstein did on finding out how fast the universe expanded. he figured that, in order for there to be an infinite universe, the edge of the universe would have to expand at a constate rate.

he found the universe expands at a deteriorating rate, which would suggest a finite starting point for the universe.

i would love to quote it, but the book is buried somewhere deep in my closet.

Unfortunately, Einstein eventually repudiated that theory (along with the Cosmological Constant that made it work). But at least it's a starting point.

there is an evidence for such a theory... its presented in a novel called The Fingerprint of God (inauspicious name, i know, but ill summarize)

theres a part where it refers to work that albert einstein did on finding out how fast the universe expanded. he figured that, in order for there to be an infinite universe, the edge of the universe would have to expand at a constate rate.

he found the universe expands at a deteriorating rate, which would suggest a finite starting point for the universe.

i would love to quote it, but the book is buried somewhere deep in my closet.

I might be wrong, but I think that discovery gave rise to the theory that the universe is constantly expanding and collapsing again only to start expanding again. But trying to sort out if that necessariyl means that the universe is finite makes my head hurt.

Blast, somebody beat me to it.

Einstein's cosmological constant was an attempt to counter the fact that the universe's expansion was progressing at an accelerating rate. He didn't seem to like the notion that the universe might expand to the point that eventually even molecular bonds would fall apart and all that'd be left is a bunch of distended photons.

Not the most pleasant ending, one can understand his desire to counter it. Only thing is it didn't work.

Did lead to the discovery of dark energy tho, which will rip us all to pieces eventually.

Unfortunately, Einstein eventually repudiated that theory (along with the Cosmological Constant that made it work). But at least it's a starting point.

Einstein took back his theory of the cosmological constant two years after he published it because it held that gravity between two masses became greater as their distance became greater (instead of gravity being greater as the masses were closer) - this is also in the very same book i was mentioning, so id love to quote it if i have the time tomorrow.

Einstein took back his theory of the cosmological constant two years after he published it because it held that gravity between two masses became greater as their distance became greater (instead of gravity being greater as the masses were closer) - this is also in the very same book i was mentioning, so id love to quote it if i have the time tomorrow.

actually, the constant would read that the force repelling two masses would get stronger as the masses seperated - that instead of being pulled together

Quotation from "The Fingerprint of God," by Hugh Ross. Pgs. 53-55:

"Einstein's reactions to his own equations may possibly acknowledge the threat of an encounter with God. Before he published his cosmological inferences from the theory of general relativity, he searched for a way to "fix up" the equations, anything to permit a static solution, a universe free of expansion or deceleration.

Einstein postulated a cosmic force of repulsion to cancel off the attractive force of gravity, despite the body of evidence that gravity was predominant in its influence throughout our galaxy and its vicinity. Einstein had to develop a repulsive force that would have imperceptible consequences for nearby objects but overwhelming effects over extreme distances. The only way this could be expressed consistently was to add a term, A (in the book, its a symbol similar to the symbol for angstroms), to the right hand side of equation 5.3 (im not going to include the equations... they are waaaay too complex to type out), A/3 to the right hand side of equation 5.4, and 2A/3 to equation 5.5. In each case A represents the cosmological constant of repulsive force, or what Einstein termed the cosmological constant. By introducing this constant, he could eliminate both deceleration and expansion. Thus, the inevitability of an ultimate beginning for his model of the universe could be avoided..."

Pg. 59

"Einstein did admit, however, even as early as 1919, that his cosmological constant was 'gravely detrimental to the formal beauty of the theory.' In 1931, following the publication of Hubble's law of redshifts, Einstein finally discarded the cosmological constant from his field equations and conceded that its introduction was 'the greatest mistake of his life.'

Myself, I believe in Unintelligent Design.

One more for the road...

Pg. 59, same book:

"According to his journal writings, Einstein wrestled with a deeply felt bitterness toward the clergy, toward priests in particular, and with his inability to resolve the paradox of God's omnipotence and man's responsibility for his choices.

If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgement on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?

Seeing no solution to this paradox, Einstein, like many ther powerful intellects through the centuries, ruled out the existence of a personal God."

Einstein's constant had nothing to do with God. It had to do with the fact that he put it there because his study base was only in relation to nearby stars, and not the rather large number of galaxies drifting around (but mostly away from) us.

Even so, the equations he came up with said everything went against what he was observing (stars coming towards us, just sitting there, doing loop-de-loops, whatever), so he had to add some form of fudge factor to make the thing work. He made the comment that the constant was detrimental to the beauty of the theory because it was unstable and no other reason. In his effort to keep the universe 'static' the constant was put in place in order to counter the apparent expansion, and it was a static universe, but it was unstable, and one thing that should be obvious is that over the course of so long, something that is unstable, collapses... or breaks apart... or what the heck ever.

P.S. Just getting this stuff from my Cosmology book. Where better to read about a cosmological constant than a book detailing cosmology?

Einstein's constant had nothing to do with God. It had to do with the fact that he put it there because his study base was only in relation to nearby stars, and not the rather large number of galaxies drifting around (but mostly away from) us.

Even so, the equations he came up with said everything went against what he was observing (stars coming towards us, just sitting there, doing loop-de-loops, whatever), so he had to add some form of fudge factor to make the thing work. He made the comment that the constant was detrimental to the beauty of the theory because it was unstable and no other reason. In his effort to keep the universe 'static' the constant was put in place in order to counter the apparent expansion, and it was a static universe, but it was unstable, and one thing that should be obvious is that over the course of so long, something that is unstable, collapses... or breaks apart... or what the heck ever.

P.S. Just getting this stuff from my Cosmology book. Where better to read about a cosmological constant than a book detailing cosmology?

good stuff, isnt it?

so, im wondering... what if we were created through a process involving both intelligent design and evolution? something like the creation of the universe, life on earth, etc. etc., and then evolution, with God acting as some *demented :p* puppet master in betweens?

thats where im going with this thread

Unfortunately, Einstein eventually repudiated that theory (along with the Cosmological Constant that made it work). But at least it's a starting point.

The Cosmological Constant is back in fasion in physics at the moment as it is needed for the theories to agree with our observations. I have no idea about this other theory that you speak of though.

Is there a middle ground between intelligent design and evolution?Evolution is the most intelligent way to design a universe. Minimum effort, maximum effect. Not to mention you avoid the staggering complexity.

good stuff, isnt it?

so, im wondering... what if we were created through a process involving both intelligent design and evolution? something like the creation of the universe, life on earth, etc. etc., and then evolution, with God acting as some *demented :p* puppet master in betweens?

thats where im going with this thread

I think you won't find a lot of discussion there. How you fill the blanks is completely up to you really, as long as you treat it as a hypothesis and don't try to sell it as some form of absolute truth ;)

The unfortunate thing is that there is only one point at which one could fling out the 'GOD DID IT!' exclamation and not be overtly disproven.

After all, there is no means available to humanity to see past the Big Bang, and as such we have no means of empirically studying what may have caused such a fateful occurrence. In this situation, it is possible for someone to say that the big bang was caused by a giant space rabbit accidentally sneezing, coughing, and pooping all at the same time and thereby causing itself to explode with such cataclysmic force that it led to the spawning of a new universe contained within another far larger universe in which the giant space rabbit's spontaneous detonation might have been little more than a muffled pop from a gargantuan space burrow, completely ignored by a pair of colossal space philosophers debating whether the universe was created as a fluke of its own existence or at the divine whim of the Great Weaver Beast of Zorrin.

And there'd be no means to legitimately prove that someone wrong.

We can, however, make educated guesses about what might have caused such a thing, which is where we get into String Theory, N-space theory, Brane theory, what have you.

Anything follows from God, includng evolution.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/AwJeeznotthisshitagain.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/AwJeeznotthisshitagain.jpg

I prefer my President Mugabe one. :p

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/AwJeeznotthisshitagain.jpg

This discussion happens on here a lot then does it?

This discussion happens on here a lot then does it?

It never stops....

I prefer my President Mugabe one. :p
I saw it, appreciated it, and then nevertheless decided to go ahead and post mine! :D
This discussion happens on here a lot then does it?
Once or twice a week. If all the n00bs were required to read through all the other threads on this very topic, it would never show up again. :p

I saw it, appreciated it, and then nevertheless decided to go ahead and post mine! :D

I was gonna post that one, but I figured I'd leave it for someone else and give the Pres a go.

Once or twice a week. If all the n00bs were required to read through all the other threads on this very topic, it would never show up again. :p

They'd (including me) would probably leave too because there are too many repetitive threads.