http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0&feature=rec-HM-rev-rn

In this video CDK shows how by taking the example of a watch giving it the properties of living systems it will evolve.

He uses a simple computer simulation program that he wrote to achieve this and for our benefit he has posted the code to his application for all to pick apart.

Its quite beautiful and simple.

Jeremy.

There are many people to believe that the universe / life was designed, who also accept evolution in part or in whole. Of course the Theory of Evolution doesn't address abiogenesis. But the theory of intelligent design doesn't necessarily apply to evolution, but rather to abiogenesis.

One flaw in the scientific community is that while many scientists have admitted to an appearance of design in the universe, they refuse to contemplate the intelligence design theory. This is simply because those who suggested the theory are Christians. Because of this, Intelligent Design is very under-developed. If the scientific community could focus on the examples of design that are almost undeniable, like in the physical laws of the universe, then they could contribute to the advance of the theory of Intelligent Design.

Here is a very good example of a Christian apologist who believes in the Intelligent Design theory and in Evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfpfNHragUQ&feature=related

I watched a program on the Discovery channel about how Nazi scientists rethought what science was and developed flying wings and other marvels that the rest of the world has yet to achieve. I think the scientific community is going to have to go through a similar re-thinking process to advance knowledge in the most productive manner.

Science has always progressed based on need, innovation moves toward the market place to fill needs.

Evolution has benefited the medical industry by helping resolve issues of why certain proteins / enzymes are being produced and how that can effect the organism.

Basing our exploration of science on finding god is not productive toward filling needs of living people. Most scientists try to be pragmatists first and people second.

The evil guy, Gabriel, he was a watch repairman in the Heroes show before he learned of his ability....

This doesn't seem to be a response to what I posted.

I didn't say our exploration of science should be based on finding God. But if the science points towards an Intelligent Designer, scientists shouldn't close their eyes, cover their ears and scream "There is no God" until the deists quit talking, simply because that intelligent designer might be God.

Actually I did answer your question. Spider if a scientist looks at your data and says nope that doesn't prove ID, that is the same thing they do when its not ID. If there is a hypothesis that salts form from some process due to a hypothetical mechanism, and peer review shows that this is wrong, that is no different then what has happened with ID.

The problem that has precipitated the whole "debate" is that the proponents of ID will not give up just because there research doesn't work, they ignore that its wrong and keep trying to get it into the classroom bypassing the normal route to certification.

Keep at it thought I am ever interested even if doubtful. The core problem is that to say god did it, is kinda giving up understanding the details of a process, if the details point back to an unknowable creator, that is kinda the same as saying I don't know where the details point.

See the problem?

Bushidobillyclub,

We are getting off track.

You said: "Spider if a scientist looks at your data and says nope that doesn't prove ID, that is the same thing they do when its not ID."

Science isn't based upon opinion, but rather tests and facts. The Anthropic Principle is based upon the apparent fine tuning of the universe. A slight change in the nuclear forces and no atoms but hydrogen can exist. A change to the other direction makes the nuclear forces too strong to be broken by chemical reactions making all matter inert. So the question becomes, was the universe designed to support life as we know it? Well, that's testable, John Leslie suggested the following criteria:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle


What seems to happen in science today is when a scientist sees that they are approaching a subject which cannot be tested by science, they back off. The proper approach would be to follow the evidence until science can go no further. If the evidence eventually leads to God, then so be it. If it leads away from God, then so be it. But shouldn't science be interested in this subject: That the laws of our universe appear to be so finely tuned that even a small change will result in a drastically different universe and possibly one which couldn't support any life at all?

Spider I guarantee there will always be scientists who have the courage to move forward.

I also did not mean to imply that its based on opinion (meh bad), its based on if it works, and we consistently find the same reasons why it works, then it is accepted as true.

I have read much on the fine tuning argument and without an understanding of how universes form the argument is just as moot as ID.

Understanding how the various forces split off from each other isn't enough, we have to understand the mechanism which set off the expansion, gave it its NRG. (we may find that our search has just been pushed back one more step like we have been)

But again, if we discover this mechanism, and know how it works, and its not conscious . . . then is it god?

Can intelligence transcend consciousness?

Duplicate post

Spider You may enjoy reading, "The Cosmic Jackpot" By Paul Davies.

He has good arguments for considering this aspect of universal creation.

Scientists are interested in this subject. And some of them have actually come up with some interesting theories. Including Alan Guth, and many others who have contributed to Inflation theory.

One HUGE PROBLEM is that no one can possible say for sure whether a small change would truly produce an uninteresting universe.

We only have one example to go by. So we have no clue what else may be possible.

There are so many other things to consider as well. Perhaps the univers is made in such a way that if you change one parameter another one automatically changes to compensate.

In fact, this is indeed a very plausible case. We know that almost every aspect of the universe has conversation laws. And those have to do with the fact, that if you change something over 'there' it's going to change something over 'here'.

It's like a rug that just fits in a room and if you try to pull it up at one end you're going to mess up all the other corners.

So some prominant scientists have already suggested that it's meaningless to talk about changing just one parameter without considering the effect it will have on another.

The other too was the 'flatness' problem. It was once believed that it's a miracle that the unvierse is flat (Euclidean; not 2-dimensional flat).

But it has since been shown that this may be the way it has to be. There is no other choice. And the reason being is because of how creation works.

Matter and gravity must offset one another precisely. This is the only way to create something from nothing without violating the energy conservation laws of nature.

The creation of the universe does not violate the energy conservation law. The reason it doesn't violate it is because gravity truly counts as negative energy. So the sum total energy of the universe is zero.

This also forces the universe to be flat (Euclidean).

So what at first appeared to be a miracle of a coincidence turns out to be something that simply must be. It wasn't by chance at all. It has to be that way because that's the only way it can come to be.

So if we look back and say, "Well what if their was a little more energy than gravity, or vice versa?".

But that's a meaningless question.

This is why the anthropic principle really has no merit. It's based on total guesses and misunderstanding.

Until we know and understand why things are the way they are, it's truly meaningless to ask if they could be different.

Maybe they can't be different. And that's all there is to that.

This certainly appears to be what's happening with gravity, energy and the fact that the universe is Euclidean in its geometry. It's the only way it can be because of how it comes into being.

It just can't exist in any other proportions. So to ask why it's so perfect is moot. The answer is simple: This is the only way it can be.

No, it's not. You bluster and posture, but you have no idea about the Anthropic principle. You have repeatedly mischaracterized the Anthropic Principle.

For those who don't know (including you James)

The Anthropic Principle was written by two atheist physicist.

The Anthropic Principle is a rationalization of UNDENIABLE measurements and calculations of the universe and the forces in the universe.

Those measurements and calculations seem to show that the universe was fine tuned for life to exist. Those measurements and calculations clearly show that a universe without life would be far more possible than the one we exist in. Those measurements and calculations show that chance that our universe could exist with the physical laws that it has is statistically 0. Here is another tidbit about those measurements and calculations: They are completely unrefuted by science. As far as anyone can tell, they are 100% accurate.

Here's the interesting thing: The Anthropic Principle is widely rejected, because it can't be tested. In rejecting the Anthropic Principles (there are four of them) is pointing out the elephant in the room. If the Anthropic Principles aren't acceptable to science and they are the only "scientific" explanation for the "anthropic coincidences" that science can create, then science is left without an explanation for the "anthropic coincidences" except for God.

I can tell you all that if you even find yourself believing James' slant on the Anthropic Principle, then you need to do some research. He claims that "It's based on total guesses and misunderstanding". That is complete BS and he knows that full well. The actual physics behind the Anthropic principle are accepted in science. The are proven again and again in the lab. There is no question that the anthropic principle is based on sound science. NONE. Even those who reject the conclusions made in the Anthropic Principle don't doubt the physics that the Anthropic principle is based upon.

The physics behind the Anthropic Principle are the single greatest proof that a deity exists that science has ever produced. The proof is so strong that one of the atheist physicists who developed the Anthropic Principle rejected his own theories and accepted that a deity exists.

If you believe James on this subject, this is a chance to free your mind and actually learn the truth rather than believe James comforting lies. Do the research yourself and try to find a physicist who rejects the physics behind the Anthropic principle. Remember: James said that the Anthropic Principle is "based on total guesses and misunderstanding." Those are his words, rejecting sound and accepted science. Science that is confirmed in the laboratory every day.

The only reason these two topics exist, creationism and evolution, is so some people will not have to do physical work for a living.

No offense, but that comment makes no sense.

I would try to explain it, but it would read much like a bible. People would kill each other trying to prove it does or does not make sense. And in the end all would be lost. I don't imagine I can actually win any kind of a debate about anything. I know I have already won!

People would kill themselves over if it's true that the only reason people are interesting in if creationism or evolution exists, is so that some people don't have to work.

That makes less sense than your previous post. I'm starting to notice a trend here.

The debate of creationism vs evolution exists because people are interested in the subjects. Whatever your theory is, I'm confident that nobody would kill over it.

The Anthropic Principle isn't even science. It's philosophy.

You make it sound like it's established science. It's not.

Moreover, the Anthropic Principle could never be used to support the Biblical picture of God which everyone knows that you support. If you believe in the Anthropic Principle surely you must reject the Bible.

Why do I say this?

Because clearly to believe the Bible you must believe a myriad of absurdities. Not the least of which is a the very idea that the creator of this universe would be appeased by blood sacrifices.

Yet, you want to use the Anthropic Principle to try to gain merit for the idea that a "god" must exist.

This is truly absurd Spider.

Even if the Anthropic Principle is accepted as having any merit at all, it can only support the Pantheistic view of 'god'.

The idea of a God who is at war with fallen angels, lusts for blood sacrifices before he can forgive sins, and can't even deliver a promised land without asking his children to slaughter the men, women, and children that are living on that land with no mercy, is truly an assine idea.

You could hardly use something like the Anthropic Principle to support such an asburd mythology.

Besides, you're barking up the wrong tree.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for there to have been some intelligence involved with the creation of the universe. All I'm saying is that the Anthropic Principle just doesn't have the merit that you claim to support that case.

I'm no an atheist. I believe that we are all spirit. We were spirit before we were born and we'll be spirit after we die. If there is an intelligent spiritual foundation to this universe the most likely truth is that we are it.

I don't deny our spiritual essence. I just claim that the Anthropic Principle doesn't come anywhere near being 'evidence' for intelligent design.

And even if it was, it certainly doesn't support the Mediterranean mythology. On the contrary, that mythology isn't even a picture of an intelligent God.

Think about it.

In the Biblical picutre you have a God that created a unvierse and a bunch of angels.

A full third of his angels turned against him. Clearly, right off the bat we see that his heaven isn't such a great place since a full third of his angels weren't happy there.

Then, instead of just making those unhappy angels disappear he goes to war with them?

This is already a very unwise God and we haven't even gotten to the part where he creates humans.

Thus if the universe requires and intellgent design we can rule out the Biblical God because he's clearly not intelligent. He couldn't even keep his own angels happy.

There's just no way that the Anthropic Principle can be sued to support Mediterranean mythology.

Spirituality? Maybe. But not Mediterranean mythology. That's for sure.

So it's a moot argument for supporters of that picture of God anyway.

If the Anthropic Principle supports anything at all it would be the Pantheisic world view.

So even if I agree with the Anthropic Principle is just points to pantheism anyway.

By the way, I'm not saying that the Anthropic Principle is wrong. I'm just saying that it's inconclusive and is based on a LOT of unproven assumptions.

That's all I'm saying.

Well spdr, I am 100% positive that whatever your theory is, it is just that, a theory! You can continue to debate these "I know the truth People" all you want. but in the end you, me, and like everyone else, will pass from this life without knowing for certain!

It's cosmology.

It's not established science, but the PHYSICS BEHIND THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE ARE. Like I said already in my previous post. I think it would be nice before you try to refute someones posts if you would actually read the post. And stop pretending that you know anything about a subject of which you are clearly and completely ignorant.

I'm sure you would love to believe these wet dreams of yours concerning my alledged ignrorance.

However, the fact remains that the Anthropic Principle is based on a lot of unproven assumptions. The most prominent cosmologists will be the first to suggest this.

And as I've pointed out, it certainly can't be used to support the mythology that you are always attempting to support.

So I have no clue why you are so concerned about it in the first place. Even if the Anthropic Principle should have some merit, it still doesn't denounce evolution, and it most certainly doesn't support the biblical picture of creation.

The biblical picture of creation defies reason anyway.

Here you have a supposedly all-powerful all-perfect God who is at war with a fallen angel and loses the vast majority of souls that he creates to this demonic angel.

There's no way that the Anthropic Principle could be used to support such an absurd mythology anyway.

So like I say, even if I were to accept the Anthropic Principle I would see it as lending credence to pantheism anyway.

So I have no motivation to reject it. I'm just being realistic when I say that it's based on a lot of highly questionable premises.

It might be right. It might be wrong.

We just don't know.

But even if it is right it most certainly doesn't denounce evolution, nor does it point to any absurd mythologies as being the word of God either.

So why you argue for it so hard is beyond me. It doesn't even support your mythologies anyway.

Name one.