If There is no such thing as "Intelligent Design".

[Elijah John]

If there is no such thing as "Intelligent Design", why do intelligent designers (scientists, inventors and engineers) look to Nature for inspiration?

Disclaimer: Please don't make this a thread about atheistic Evolution vs (six day) Biblical Creation, there are other possibilities and combinations to consider.

Some examples from a National Geographic article:

The science of biomimetics including,

-More efficient streamlining based on the structure of the boxfish. (Mercedes study)
-The thorny devil lizard, in effect drinking water through it's scales, actually whisking water via channels between it's scales to it's mouth. (for the irrigation of arid enviroments)
-burs inspired the design of velcro
-the waterproof properties of the lotus leaf is self-cleaning and has inspired "Lotosan" paint, said to better resist water and stains.
-sharkskin scales inhibit the growth and attachment of barnicles and is being studied for ways to treat the hull surfaces of navy ships to make them cleaner and faster.

And of course, the streamline shape of the Mako Shark in inspiring the Corvette. .

Of course there are many other examples of human invention being inspired by Natural (Intelligent?) design.

Granted, this is not proof of a creative Deity, (evidence, perhaps) but for debate, isn't it ironic that some very intelligent and creative people deny design in Nature while at the same time looking to it for inspiration?

And though National Geographic did not address Theistic or Deistic implications, are these examples evidence of at least a Deistic interpretation of the natural world?

[William]

[Replying to post 20 by brunumb]

Good grief! The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang.

If that were the case, then one would have to suppose that these events must be related to different universes.

If not, then the BB theory is the idea that this universe had a beginning - the BB being the evidence of that event, and anything else which occurred after that event can be traced to the BB , so yes, everything which happens in this universe - including biological evolution - can be sourced to the BB event, so therein the BB does indeed have something (rather than nothing) to do with BE.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 21 by William]

....so therein the BB does indeed have something (rather than nothing) to do with BE.

Word games. The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the origin of the universe so you should not conflate the two in any way.

I notice that you conveniently ignored the more important point that I actually addressed in that post. Assuming attributes of a being whose existence has not even been established is a futile exercise no matter how much you try to justify it.

[William]

[Replying to post 22 by brunumb]

Word games.

Not at all.

The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the origin of the universe so you should not conflate the two in any way.

It isn't a matter of conflating anything. If the theory of evolution has 'nothing to say' about the origin of the universe, it won't be because "The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang." as you stated, but because it would be simply assumed that the BB - as the source event which began the physical universe, obviously has to have something to do with biological evolution, as a matter of course.

I notice that you conveniently ignored the more important point that I actually addressed in that post.

I thought it more prudent to sort out your first claim before getting into anything else you had to say related to that.

Assuming attributes of a being whose existence has not even been established is a futile exercise no matter how much you try to justify it.

Not futile at all. The attribute assumed is that is has to be an eternal being, for logical reasons I have already mentioned a few times now. Reasons which are themselves, 'conveniently ignored'.

Go figure.

It isn't a case of justifying anything. As is clearly evident, it is a case of making logical assumptions which do away with the magical thinking re the BB.

If you can think of any way in which one can establish the existence of an eternal being(or for that matter argue logically why it cannot be the case) other than through the device of philosophy, I am all ears.

Otherwise I don't see any legitimacy in your argumentative reply.






'

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 23 by William]

If you can think of any way in which one can establish the existence of an eternal being(or for that matter argue logically why it cannot be the case) other than through the device of philosophy, I am all ears.

In which case all discussion of this being is pretty much pointless. It has never demonstrated any of the attributes it is claimed to possess let alone its very existence. All of that reduces to the ultimate in magical thinking. You can argue that your God must be an eternal being but that is nothing more than patching up holes in the whole God argument.

Iterations of what makes up our universe may have always existed, whatever always really means. We know nothing about what existed back beyond a very small fraction of a second after the proposed BB event. We don't insert a magical being simply because we don't know.

Ancient people invented gods in order to explain their existence. With time that evolved beyond an invented answer to their questions into a being that has personality and makes demands of the most intelligent animals on our planet. That got embedded in societies along with the need to justify it all. God has always been the ultimate in magical thinking because it answers all questions while explaining nothing.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 23 by William]

I thought it more prudent to sort out your first claim before getting into anything else you had to say related to that.

Now that you have finished attacking a trivial matter of semantics, perhaps you can now address this:

While the Big Bang was the beginning of this universe it is not necessarily the beginning of all existence. We have managed to trace back the history of the universe to within an incredibly small fraction of a second after the BB. What there was and what happened before is unknown. It is not unreasonable to suppose that there has always been something, but that it simply changes in form just as energy can be changed into different forms. Also, for all we know time is an artefact that is predicated on the existence of this universe. Eternity may be a meaningless concept in reality.

[Donray]

If there is no such thing as "Intelligent Design", why do intelligent designers (scientists, inventors and engineers) look to Nature for inspiration?

Disclaimer: Please don't make this a thread about atheistic Evolution vs (six day) Biblical Creation, there are other possibilities and combinations to consider.

Some examples from a National Geographic article:

The science of biomimetics including,

-More efficient streamlining based on the structure of the boxfish. (Mercedes study)
-The thorny devil lizard, in effect drinking water through it's scales, actually whisking water via channels between it's scales to it's mouth. (for the irrigation of arid enviroments)
-burs inspired the design of velcro
-the waterproof properties of the lotus leaf is self-cleaning and has inspired "Lotosan" paint, said to better resist water and stains.
-sharkskin scales inhibit the growth and attachment of barnicles and is being studied for ways to treat the hull surfaces of navy ships to make them cleaner and faster.

And of course, the streamline shape of the Mako Shark in inspiring the Corvette. .

Of course there are many other examples of human invention being inspired by Natural (Intelligent?) design.

Granted, this is not proof of a creative Deity, (evidence, perhaps) but for debate, isn't it ironic that some very intelligent and creative people deny design in Nature while at the same time looking to it for inspiration?

And though National Geographic did not address Theistic or Deistic implications, are these examples evidence of at least a Deistic interpretation of the natural world?

There is no need for your "(Intellegent?) design" It just shows your bigotry toward a God.

Could you explain how natural cancer killing someone is an example of your intelligent design of nature?

Why do you think creative people deny design in nature? Evolution produced the designs you described and creative people see them and use them. Do you think your god is directly involved in all of nature?

Is each and every snowflake designed by your god?

Tell use the intelligence behind the snowflake....

[Bust Nak]

As explained Bust Nak, the problem with this is that the Big Bang is essentially the event which the Theory of Evolution claims as evidence of the universe having a beginning, so to dismiss this by assuming the Big Bang is eternal and thus had no beginning is contrary to the Big Bang theory.

First of all Science fail. I'll let others pick that little paragraph apart as far as the science goes. To answer your point - the universe had a beginning, the Big Bang doesn't, there is nothing contradictory here, either logically, or scientifically.

Of course your explanation will somehow have to be backed up with empirical evidence scientists can falsify...

That's easy, we have the whole of cosmology for that. Space and time is one and the same and begun at the Big Bang. i.e. there is no such thing as "before" the Big bang.

otherwise you wax philosophical, which is okay in relation to a creator being having something to do with creating the Big Bang, but not in relation to the Big Bang always having existed and thus having no beginning.

What's this? Sounds like you are conceding that all this talk of an eternal creator is waxing philosophical.

The theory of the BB thinks it is applicable.

Don't know what you are talking about.

No, you don't SEE because you do not understand yet that the assumption ISN'T the same. See?

No, that's because the assumption are the same.

And this is part of your confusion. If the BB is eternal, then so is the rest of the universe in which case, there should be neither cause nor effect involved in the unfolding process, and indeed there should be no unfolding process, yet there most definitely IS.

That's like saying God is eternal, therefore the universe itself is eternal. It makes no sense.

Which is WHY the BB theory identifies the BB as 'the beginning of this universe'.

See?

Sure, but what I don't see, is why you are insisting that an eternal BB that did not have a beginning needs an explanation.

As can be seen I have being trying to show you where you are incorrect about this.
You are claiming it is okay to presume that the BB is eternal and so didn't actually 'happen' and is not the 'beginning' of the universe, because it is eternal.

Close but not quite. The BB actually happen and is the beginning of the universe. The BB didn't have a beginning though. It seems you simply didn't get what I was saying and have created a straw version of your own.

This flies in the face of the science of the BB theory (as explained further back in this post).

Sure, your version does flies in the face of the science. Mine doesn't though.

It is more sensible to understand that the universe had a beginning and that the BB is the evidence of that event.

It's more sensible still to understand that the universe doesn't need a creator.

In relation to the idea that it must have been created BY an eternal being, the being MUST be eternal otherwise there is the illogical contradiction of the argument of Infinite Regression...

There is no illogical contradiction in infinite regression. It just isn't what is proposed by Christianity.

which implies that there must always be a creator for a creator when this is not at necessary or logical, as the better assumption is that there must be One creator who was not Itself created, and thus has to have always existed and has never not existed.

What makes it better assumption though? Are you just saying it's better because you were under the impression that infinite regression is self contradictory?

Philosophically the idea of an eternal creator rebuffs the argument of Infinite Regression.

So does an eternal BB. See?

[Donray]

William you need answer one question. From what material did your god create the universe? Please be specific since you do know your god. And how did god get this material?

[William]

[Replying to post 27 by Bust Nak]

the universe had a beginning, the Big Bang doesn't, there is nothing contradictory here

The theory of the BB is the evidence of the beginning of the universe. The BB is an event.
What you wrote above is the same as saying that 'the human had a beginning, the sperm and egg doesn't'.
It should read "'the human had a beginning, the sperm and egg represents that'."

"The universe had a beginning, the Big Bang represents that."

That's easy, we have the whole of cosmology for that. Space and time is one and the same and begun at the Big Bang.

There ya go. "The universe had a beginning, the Big Bang represents that."

i.e. there is no such thing as "before" the Big bang.

Magical thinking. See my other posts which explain why this is magical thinking.
Also, support your claim here, and perhaps cite scientists regarding this assertion.

What's this? Sounds like you are conceding that all this talk of an eternal creator is waxing philosophical.

Correct. Only I am not 'conceding' anything as I have never stated anything but that the question of the idea of GOD is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.

I don't conflate the two. One deals with the physical reality and the other deals with ideas on how that reality came to be.

Don't know what you are talking about.

Never mind. Other readers will.

No, that's because the assumption are the same.

Ah well. There is little more I can add then to show you where they are not. I guess we are done here?

And this is part of your confusion. If the BB is eternal, then so is the rest of the universe in which case, there should be neither cause nor effect involved in the unfolding process, and indeed there should be no unfolding process, yet there most definitely IS.

That's like saying God is eternal, therefore the universe itself is eternal. It makes no sense.

No. I was answering your assertion, remember - you said;

"Assume the Big Bang is eternal and thus has no beginning and thus requires no explanation regarding who or what created the Big Bang, done."

You were claiming that assuming the above was allowed since I was assuming GOD was eternal. I in turn explained that you were conflating. The assumptions are not the same because the subjects are different, and we KNOW that the universe had a beginning.

Sure, but what I don't see, is why you are insisting that an eternal BB that did not have a beginning needs an explanation.

If the BB event was eternal it would still be happening and scientists wouldn't speak of CMB as being evidence that something happened (past tense) and that something which happened has been called the "Big Bang".
So I am not insisting that an "eternal BB that did not have a beginning needs an explanation."

The BB actually happen and is the beginning of the universe. The BB didn't have a beginning though.

Did you mean to write The BB actually happened? - As in, past tense.

It's more sensible still to understand that the universe doesn't need a creator.

Why do you believe that? Is it the same reason you believe the BB still exists and always will?

Like I said, The BB theory begins with the hypothesis that the universe had a beginning and the event which made that possible was the BB. I have not seen any science which claims the BB itself is eternal.

Perhaps what you are trying to say is that the stuff of the universe has existed forever in various states, continually expanding and contracting and that each time it contracts into a point of infinite density the reaction is a 'Big Bang' which starts another process of creating another universe?

Is this what you are saying? The the BB is eternal in the sense that it happens over and over again, as an event which creates another universe?

If so then would it not be more accurate to say that the stuff of the universe is that which is eternal?

Also, if that is what you are saying then when you said "i.e. there is no such thing as "before" the Big bang." you would be incorrect about that, see?

What makes it better assumption though? Are you just saying it's better because you were under the impression that infinite regression is self contradictory?

What makes it better assumption though? Are you just saying it's better because you were under the impression that infinite regression is self contradictory?

No. I have been saying that assuming a creator requires a creator, requires a creator ad infinitum, is easily enough rebutted by simply assuming one creator which has always existed.

Are we moving from "Timelessness vs infinite regress argument" to "The universe has always existed" argument?

[Donray]

William: Why didn't answer my question? Is that because you have no idea how your god would have created the universe.

You appear to fail to understand that the BB was just the expansion of a universe that was very small. Image all the material of universe in a small (relative) package that just explodes.

Unlike your god that was created by an intelligent animal the universe in some form always existed.

Again tell me what your god created the universe from and where it got the material?