Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: ID Quiz 66

Journal by pudge
Two questions:
  1. Is it possible for science to prove that man exists by pure chance, without any external intelligent force?
  2. If yes, has science proved it already?

Update: Feel free to also answer whether science can even provide any evidence of the claim, regardless of whether it can be ultimately proved. Although, the answer for that is also "no."

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ID Quiz More

ID Quiz

Comments Filter:
  • 1) No
    2) N/A
    • Ditto.
    • agreed... even my hard core anti-creationist friend has stated that before the big bang... sure... God coulda created that...
      So, at its very core, you cannot disprove God.
    • Nope. Unless some lab can create a human from molecular stew.... the only way to prove someting from the past is to duplicate it. I don't believe humans can posses the necessary conditions to duplicate a molecular stew creation of life theory.

      jason

      • Nope. Unless some lab can create a human from molecular stew.... the only way to prove someting from the past is to duplicate it. I don't believe humans can posses the necessary conditions to duplicate a molecular stew creation of life theory.

        I thought about the question very carefully. Duplicating the results does not prove a particular method, it only proves that a particular method is viable. The fact that science might one day create a human from a soup of chemicals does in no way disprove that God

        • I thought about the question very carefully. Duplicating the results does not prove a particular method, it only proves that a particular method is viable. The fact that science might one day create a human from a soup of chemicals does in no way disprove that God might have previously done through mystical ways.

          Absolutely correct.

          Remember, we are talking about proof. Things like Occam's Razor would suggest strongly that the simpler explanation (demonstratable science) is more likely to be correct that more
          • Or, more succinctly: Occam's Razor is philosophy, not science.

            The same with ID. It's not science. It's a philosophy. For all I know evolution could have been controlled by some external party. But since ID is not science, it doesn't belong in science class.

            I think most people don't really care if other people believe in ID. And actually it can be a really interesting thing to discuss. Most people have a problem with a philosophy being taught to children in a science class, instead of science.

            I think t
            • But since ID is not science, it doesn't belong in science class.

              That's not the subject at hand. The subject at hand is whether saying -- implicitly or explicitly -- that we evolved without a Designer belongs in a science class.

              I think the vitrol comes from people who see pushing ID as a way to push religious instruction into school, and not so much just people disagreeing with ID.

              But those people pushing ID are doing so as a reaction to others pushing their anti-religious views into schools.
              • Does teaching evolution equate to saything that there was no designer or outside forces?

                Evolution is not anti-religious, imho. It's completely neutral on the subject.

                • Does teaching evolution equate to saything that there was no designer or outside forces?

                  No. Please read the other comments. :-)
                  • Good article on the problems with the "science" of ID (it doesn't discuss its philosphy). Enojoy.

                    Grow Some Testables: Intelligent design ducks the rigors of science. [slate.com]

                    It includes a link to a WaPo article that is also interesting.

                    • The WaPo story that is linked from the one above includes this quote... which brings it back around to Pudge's Journal topic... (see!):

                      By contrast, said Alan Leshner, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Intelligent Design offers nothing in the way of testable predictions.

                      "Just because they call it a theory doesn't make it a scientific theory," Leshner said. "The concept of an intelligent designer is not a scientifically testable assertion."

                    • And this bit at the end:

                      Although the central tenets of evolution have done nothing but grow stronger with every experimental challenge, the story is still evolving, Carroll and other scientists acknowledge. Some details are sure to be refined over time. The question to be answered in Harrisburg is whether Intelligent Design has anything scientific to add for now, or whether it belongs instead in philosophy class.

                    • Of course, none of that disagrees with anything I am saying.
                    • I didn't say that it did. I just thought it was interesting and reiterated what we had been discussing.

                      But with some interesting stuff about genetic mutation, origins and adaptation thrown in.
                    • I didn't say that it did.

                      And I didn't say that you said that it did! Just clarifying, just in case. :-)
        • Good points. I had not thought of the reverse.

          jason
      • Things like Occam's Razor would suggest strongly that the simpler explanation (demonstratable science) is more likely to be correct that more complex (non-demonstratable mysticism). But Occam's Razor, while generally useful, is not a method to find truth.


        Except that most anthropologists and scientists through the ages would disagree as to which side of the razor would cut off in this case. Is it not MUCH less complex to simply say "a god did it." It's incredibly complex to say that some quantum foam s
  • Name any ID research that has appeared in any respected peer-reviewed and juried scientific journal?

    I would like to read that research and any of the peer-review follow-up to it.

    Links would be appreciated.

    Thanks.

    • This post is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
      • Its an ID quiz. How is it irrelevant? We're talking about proving something and questioning science? I would like to know about ID research and proves anything that falls within the respective realm where such research is hashed out?

        I don't know of any, but then I am not a huge ID expert. I would like to know more and I am hoping for some resources to check out. I have read some ID papers, but they are all posted on ID sites (like the the Discovery Institute). I would like something in a peer-reviewed
        • Its an ID quiz. How is it irrelevant? We're talking about proving something and questioning science?

          No, I am not questioning science. Read again. I am questioning claims that are not scientific in the first place: that we exist by mere chance, without the help of any intelligent force. This claim is not supported by any amount of science.

          I am not questioning or attacking science, any more than saying "Britney Spears is marketing, not music" is an attack on music. I am merely defining its limitations, an
          • Sorry.

            I think we might actually agree here.

            I think instead of "teaching the controversy" we should exclude both from schools (if teaching the controversy is the only other option). I can't recall even having evolution taught in school, other than in history (as Darwin being a historical personage). However, biology did cover core thinking on cellular processes, ideas of mutation, genetics. plant structures, animal structures, anatomy, and the scientific method, etc. etc. etc.. God or a creator wasn't ever
            • I think instead of "teaching the controversy" we should exclude both from schools (if teaching the controversy is the only other option).

              What I would prefer, simply, is teaching what science can and cannot do, and not teaching those things science cannot speak to. The rest will basically take care of itself.

              God or a creator wasn't ever mentioned either... and even as a Christian, I was thankful for that (because you never know if your creepy science teacher's understanding of Christianity is going to be a
              • Excellent post, and why I keep reading and posting in your journals.

                Frankly, my view is that it doesn't matter what physically happened: evolutionism, creationism, I don't care, as whatever happened, it was -- in my opinion -- because God willed it, at least in a minimum way that we would come to exist. So I really don't have much of a horse in this race, and it has little effect on my belief. For that, I am more interested in prayer and the study of the life of Christ, the transmission of the New Testam

                • More than one said something to the effect of "in the end all of this turns on a matter of my faith. Faith is believing in what I cannot see and cannot prove." Good stuff.

                  But I'd be quick to add -- and I think some of them were, too -- that there's also a lot of evidence. In the end, we all have faith. Few scientists require absolute proof, since science cannot offer it: we have faith that gravity will continue to work, despite not knowing for sure that it will. We believe it primarily because of the evi
                  • But I'd be quick to add -- and I think some of them were, too -- that there's also a lot of evidence. In the end, we all have faith. Few scientists require absolute proof, since science cannot offer it: we have faith that gravity will continue to work, despite not knowing for sure that it will. We believe it primarily because of the evidence, even though the evidence is not absolute.

                    I wasn't being clear enough, but that is exactly what I was going for.

  • No. Science does not, and can not, prove things. That was one of the first things we were taught in high school science at my public school. Here, read this [wikipedia.org], particularly this bit:

    The scientific method does not aim to give an ultimate answer. Its iterative and recursive nature implies that it will never come to an end, so any answer it gives is provisional. Hence it cannot prove or verify anything in a strong sense. However, if a theory passed many experimental tests without being disproved, it is consid
    • Attacking science based on misconceptions about science is a non-starter.

      I am not attacking science. And as such, attacking what I wrote based on misconceptions about what I wrote is, likewise, a non-starter.

      Anyway, you missed the point. This is not even about ultimate answers: science cannot even provide ANY EVIDENCE to the claim. None at all.
      • science cannot even provide ANY EVIDENCE to the claim

        That's right! Science cannot even provide ANY EVIDENCE to the claim that some intelligent being created us. Which is the necessary condition for any discussion of same in the schools.

        Meanwhile, there is tons of evidence for evolution.

        There is not, as you claim, evidence that the universe evolved "completely randomly." Which is why the pro-creationist set uses this as its red herring. Where is it said in school that evolution is completely random?

        • There is not, as you claim, evidence that the universe evolved "completely randomly." Which is why the pro-creationist set uses this as its red herring. Where is it said in school that evolution is completely random?

          I did not use the phrase "completely random(ly)." I said mere chance, and qualified that with a lack of intelligent force operating on the process. "Random" is a difficult word in these discussions.

          So where "completely random" means "lack of intelligence," it is not a red herring. It happens
      • Anyway, you missed the point. This is not even about ultimate answers: science cannot even provide ANY EVIDENCE to the claim. None at all.

        The response to science not having a theory yet should not be to make things up. It should be to keep looking.

        Can you point out a single article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that claims to know how the universe originated? Or is your entire question hypothetical?
        • The response to science not having a theory yet should not be to make things up. It should be to keep looking.

          OK, you are still missing the point. It is NOT POSSIBLE for science to EVER have evidence that we exist by mere chance, without an intelligent designer. It is not that science doesn't "yet" have a theory to show it. It cannot ever have one. It is not possible.

          And further, my point is against people who make things up: those who claim, falsely, that science proves there is no intelligent design.
  • 2) not yet. [talkorigins.org]
    • Sorry, that is incorrect. The correct answer is "it is not possible," because no matter what science comes up with, it is always possible to claim that it was set up that way by the intelligent force.
      • No kidding. What's worse is there are Young Earth fundamentalists who argue God never had a creator or needed one because God had no beginning and just always existed outside of time [nwcreation.net] and the universe. Even though the universe by definition is all-encompassing.
        • No kidding. What's worse is there are Young Earth fundamentalists who argue God never had a creator or needed one because God had no beginning and just always existed outside of time and the universe. Even though the universe by definition is all-encompassing.

          Whoa there ... only by YOUR definition, maybe. The universe is NOT by definition all-encompassing. All-encompassing only of the physical universe as we know it, and that's it ... and by definition, that excludes the encompassing of the popular notion
          • And not merely "Young Earth fundamentalists" believe God had no beginning and has always existed, this is the belief of the overwhelming majority of theists since the beginning.

            Which begs the question of why they're so adamant about claiming that the Universe couldn't, likewise, have always existed without external intervention from a god.

            Do as I say, not as I do?
            • Which begs the question of why they're so adamant about claiming that the Universe couldn't, likewise, have always existed without external intervention from a god.

              I don't see what your point is.

              Ignoring the physical fact that the universe cannot possibly have always existed, according to two well-accepted truths -- the Second Law of Thermodynamics stating that the universe will eventually reach a cold death, such that if the universe always existed, it would have reach cold death by now; and the nontravers
              • What if we rephrase it "the universe will always exist"? Suppose the universe will last for an infinitely long time, and while the first 100 billion years there will be stars shining, for all the rest of that infinite time there will be no shining stars. We could just be living during the early part of the universe's eternal existence.

                As for discussing the infinte, here are two questions: How can anything exist outside the universe? How can time be infinitely long?

                If God exists outside the universe and
                • What if we rephrase it "the universe will always exist"? Suppose the universe will last for an infinitely long time, and while the first 100 billion years there will be stars shining, for all the rest of that infinite time there will be no shining stars. We could just be living during the early part of the universe's eternal existence.

                  No one has claimed the universe cannot exist forever into the future, only that it had to have had a beginning. So I don't know what the point is.

                  And I don't know what "exter
                  • You said:
                    "we could never GET to "now" if the universe had always existed"

                    So I rephrased it. Couldn't we get to "now" by time progressing along?

                    And I don't know what "external" means there.

                    I wrote "eternal", not "external."

                    Philosophy and science both maintain that everything has a cause, which means that there had to be a first cause.

                    one of the definitions of God is "the uncaused cause."

                    While you say "we are incapable of understanding anything outside our universe" since the two above statements contradict
                    • Couldn't we get to "now" by time progressing along?

                      Not if the universe were actually infinite, and had no beginning, no, we couldn't, because there are an infinite number of years between now and "then," and an infinite number of years can never pass.

                      I wrote "eternal", not "external."

                      Yes, that is what I meant. I wasn't sure what you meant by it. How can you have an "early part" of an infinite existence? If there was no beginning, there is no early part. But if there is a beginning, then I have no compla
                • But time has a start; we accept it as the Big Bang.

                  I heard Brian Singer, a well known string theorist, speak at a university event a few years back and some one stood up and asked, in an apparent attempt to start an argument (by all the "you say"s he used and his shouting), about whether Singer had explanation for what happened before the Big Bang. Singer took it as an opportunity and said that all time begins at a zero point and we can quibble about what that point is and how long it has been since then.

              • the universe cannot possibly have always existed, according to two well-accepted truths -- the Second Law of Thermodynamics stating that the universe will eventually reach a cold death, such that if the universe always existed, it would have reach cold death by now;

                If the universe is closed, then conservation of energy and gravitation suggest that there will always be pockets of heat. Look up "steady-state theory" for the details. Plenty of cosmologists believe that the big bang was a local event in s

                • If the universe is closed, then conservation of energy and gravitation suggest that there will always be pockets of heat.

                  But not in significant enough amounts to keep whole galaxies alive for eternity, no.

                  Huh? Because something is nontraversable means that it can't exist? Why?

                  It's quite simple. Go back an infinite number of years. Now come forward until you reach today.

                  But you can't do that. Because if you could go back an infinite number of years, no matter how far forward you come, there will always be
                  • I doubt you have been close enough to any black hole to measure their evaporation rates. So, why do you think you know how smoothly heat will be distributed when our local big bang reaches thermodynamic equlibrium?

                    Your argument against infinity is silly, and not convincing. What would you say to someone who argued against infinite space with: "Go left an infinite number of miles. Now come right until you reach here. But you can't do that. Because if you could go left an infinite number of miles, no ma

                    • I doubt you have been close enough to any black hole to measure their evaporation rates.

                      It doesn't matter what the evaporation rate is. As long as the rate is greater than zero, it would have evaporated entirely by now. All stars would have burned out by now. Infinity is a long time. You're arguing that the universe can be eternally self-sustaining, and there's no evidence of that.

                      Your argument against infinity is silly, and not convincing.

                      It is not silly, no. And what you mean is that you are not con
                    • I thought the evaporation rate of black holes, which we won't be able to measure for at least a few, and probably several, hundred thousand years (unless there is a black hole much closer than previously thought), bears directly on whether the big bang is consistent with the quasars.

                      If space is closed, then perhaps those quasars we see are actually our big bang.

                    • That's all fine and good, but it doesn't change the notion that over infinity years, our suns would all achieve closed death unless the system is not merely closed, but self-sustaining, across entire galaxies.

                      Of course the point is really moot, since we could never be at "now" if time really were infinite, anyway.

  • Moo (Score:2)

    by Chacham ( 981 ) *
    1) You cannot prove chance.
    2) N/A.

    On its own, Science can prove nothing, but it can test hypothesis. So, for it to prove it, someone would have to provide a coherent theory on it happening by chance. Since the theory would have to setup the situation for it to happen in, it by definition is not chance.

    Science can do something else though. It can show a possible solution. That is the attempt of the Big Bang theory. Though not complete, because it does not show how the original item got there, it is an intere

    • Re:Moo (Score:2)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      Science can do something else though. It can show a possible solution. That is the attempt of the Big Bang theory. Though not complete, because it does not show how the original item got there, it is an interesting thought.

      Right, though it cannot show what the original cause was. It never can, because no matter how far back you go, you won't ever get to the beginning. Not with science. It's not possible.

      The other approach is not to accept causality, and thus remove the need to find the reason. If this is

      • Re:Moo (Score:2)

        by Chacham ( 981 ) *
        As a side note, van der Hoop points out that although it is logic that applies cause-and-effect, it is intuition that "understands" it. That is, cause-and-effect is not logical, or rather, cannot be proven logically.

        Thus, science, in its aim to be totally logical cannot demand cause-and-effect, it is just assumed. But if you argue with some people, (typically INTP) they will demand that you prove cause-and-effect.

        Ultimately, nothing can be proven, for it always relies on certain axioms. One of those axioms

  • 1. Is it possible for science to prove that man exists by pure chance, without any external intelligent force?

    No, but this is because science doesn't aim to prove this, and neither does it aim to disprove this. .

    From this, it follows that the answer to the question of Creation is separate from science. These are two separate ways of asking questions. Basing on this, it is my firm belief that the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory of creation should be kept out of science classes, for Flying Spaghetti Monst

    • No, but this is because science doesn't aim to prove this, and neither does it aim to disprove this. .

      I never implied it did. I implied that some people think it does.

      From this, it follows that the answer to the question of Creation is separate from science.

      It depends on what you mean. If you mean Creationism, then not necessarily: young-earth Creationism is a scientific theory. A rather largely discredited one, but still.

      But if you mean the question of WHY we exist -- whether by mere chance or design --
      • And in truth, it is the scientismists who have caused most of this problem, because they are the ones who have been teaching -- essentially, when you get right down to it -- that science disproves the existence of the Christian God. So naturally, Christians react to that, by asserting they should get, at the very least, equal time.

        How so?

        I've never heard of a science curriculum that deals with the origin of the Universe pre-Big Bang. I likewise know plenty of Christians who believe in evolution. Some beli
        • I've never heard of a science curriculum that deals with the origin of the Universe pre-Big Bang.

          So? When did I say they did?

          You keep attacking things I never said. What I am talking about is saying that we exist because of mere chance, without an intelligent designer. This may be done in various ways, and saying there was nothing before the Big Bang wouldn't even necessarily be one of them. The most common way is to say simply that, as Dawkins does, that we exist by chance events, which then follow a p
  • Is it possible for science to prove that man exists by pure chance, without any external intelligent force?
    Isn't that pretty much the same question as "Is it possible for science to prove that man wasn't created by an intelligent force?" Aren't you asking for the proof of a negative? Or are you trying to illustrate that ID is not science to those who keep insisting that is what you are claiming it to be?

  • Is it possible for science to prove that man exists by pure chance, without any external intelligent force?

    No, and you don't even have to use an example as extreme as the existence of man, to make that point. Science can't even prove that a tossed coin lands heads up about half the time, due to pure chance without any external intelligent force.

    What science can show, is that the tendency for species to adapt, is basically the same as a whole bunch of coin tosses. We have learned that evolution is as m

    1. No
    2. N/A

    The scientific evidence today leads one to believe that humans could come into being without an external intelligent force. It may one day be possible to prove that humans could come into being without an external intelligent force.

    No amount of science can ever prove or disprove that it did happen this way. A being that faith tells us is both omnicient and omnipotent can always intervene in ways undetectible to science. Science can tell us what is possible, but it takes an act of faith to eit

    • No amount of science can ever prove or disprove that it did happen this way.

      No, in theory, it is possible to prove God exists, scientifically (and that he brought us into existence by his will). I can give you some citations if you really care, but it is theoretically possible, though the example is so contrived it's readily apparent that it is unlikely to ever happen.

      But it is not even theoretically possible to prove the opposite.
      • I reckon this is a worm you didn't want bitten, but I'd like a couple of those citations if you have them handy. :)

        SFT
        Guild of Folks Who Don't Care Whether God Made The Stuff Or Made The Rules That Made The Stuff
        • I briefly addressed it in another post, but basically, you just come up with a thought experiment whereby God reveals himself to us. William Dembski conjures up a talking pulsar, 300 billion light years away, that can reveal answers to questions, in Morse code. We pose to it all sorts of questions that no man has an answer to, but that can be verified as accurate (the location of Atlantis, the cure for AIDS), including those which are too computationaly difficult to possibly have an answer to, even using
  • You're asking if it is possible to prove that a guiding intelligence had no role in the formation of modern humans. The answer is no, because it's not possible to prove a negative. It *is* possible to offer a plausable mechanism by which modern humans could have formed purely by chance, one which is supported by very good evidence of a variety of types: fossils, DNA, linguistics, etc. However, no matter how much evidence is presented for a mechanism that does not require a guiding intelligence, and no matte

Slashdot Top Deals

How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? One to hold the giraffe and one to fill the bathtub with brightly colored power tools.

Close