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?

[bjs]

[Replying to post 39 by Waterfall]


Moderator Warning


Profanity is absolutely unacceptable on this forum. I know that you are new here, so it may be worth your time to review the rules.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Waterfall]

[Replying to post 32 by Waterfall]

What joy does sosh a universe bring to our life? Will you teach the youth about sosh a universe? And when they say...this is a very depressing universe...can you not come up whit something better? Who cares to go to the moon if we are living in a depressing universe? Why not give the youth some dope so they could flye away from this stupid life? How would you argue against that? If we say the universe is a depressing thing then we got problems...dont we?

The universe is just a very big place. In the lifetime of any one individual it barely changes and is largely irrelevant. There is no meaning in saying that it is a joyless or depressing place.

The place that is relevant to us is our planet. It is not inherently joyful or joyless. Individual circumstances will determine that. The prospect of death being the end should not be allowed to unduly influence that. If it is the truth then we must make the most of what we have. Wishful thinking is not much different from taking drugs if we use it to escape from reality. People spend large amounts of money buying lottery tickets in the hope of winning a fortune. They gain a little joy from that hope. But for almost everyone the reality is that they will never win. Wishing, hoping, dreaming of a better future doesn't change that.

Believing in something does not have the power to make it true. Find your own joy in the one life that you will have.

How is that possible? If you say the universe is doing the same thing over and over again? Where is the joy in that? What is there to look forward to? Endless suffering? I do not think it will bring joy to our life to teach about a universe like that.

[Bust Nak]

But you cant do anything about a bad universe?

Depends on how bad. With this universe, I can do something about.

What are you capable of?

Finding joy, making the universe a better place.

Not mosh, right? Maybe if you was the emperor, but still, you would need people to follow your commands, to protect you and your loveones.

We all need that.

But a bad universe? Who can do anything about that?

How about we make it better?

I do not find joy in that. A joyless universe is a joyless universe. Its like looking at a empty hand and you putting a stone in it.

What exactly is the problem of doing that, now you don't have an empty hand, you have a stone, if stones bring you joy, then so be it. If it's not stones you want, put something else in your hand.

Something that do no matter. Its just a distraction. Is it a distraction that brings joy? Not to me.

And yet here you are having this conversation with me. Doesn't seem like the action of someone who found no joy.

Its just like putting a beatyfull girl infront of me. As time goes by she will not look that pretty at all. But thats just me. Ofcourse you can find things that can satifie the moment. If you could give every man a wife then they would propably be satisfied. But you cant do that. Not even that I would say. What can you do?

Be satisfy with what I do have infront of me, I can do that much.

Can you change a bad universe? You can put a stone in my hand and you can say...go out there and bye a women whit this stone. I quess love has to have a reason...a stone...maybe a big stone will get me a better wife

If you are into stone, sure. I will stick to painting models and games.

I am not sure about this because I have never tried it (OD) but is it a bad death? Do you fell anything bad? Maybe we should go whit dope and someone blowing ones brains out.

Nah, I pass. That is not a good death.

If I am enjoying this conversation it most be because I think we are eternal beings talking about a bad universe. How else could I enjoy this conversation?

The same way I am enjoying this conversation? i.e. as temporally beings taking about an okay universe.

If I really thought this universe was bad then I would be out there finding dope or a another way to leave this bad universe.

Why do you think this is bad though. It's not perfect, but it's good enough, at least from where I am sitting, great even. Are you struggling with life? Financially? Romantically? Health, physical or mental? Family problems? There are people who can help.

But there are those who would desagree. Because should we not raise our woise to this insane universe before we go? Inspire people to do the right thing? Maybe drop the bomb?

We should and we can raise above our worse, inspire people to do the right thing. There is joy in that and it's great.

A stone in your hand?

Well, a paint brush.

What part?

Me, you, other people.

Well...you dont have to send them over to me...I can get them over at your place. Maybe ask one of your nabors? Its a fuck up world we are living in remember. Push a botton here push a botton there and wupti...your children would be here whit me.

I very much doubt that you a) can be bothered to or b) has the means to.

I am still not sure what point you are trying to make. The universe is bad without a god therefore there is a god? That's plain illogical. The there is no joy without god? Well that doesn't apply to be, I have joy with god. The universe is dangerous without God? It sure is, I have to be careful with people trying to get at my children.

Good luck whit that

Thanks.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 42 by Waterfall]

How is that possible? If you say the universe is doing the same thing over and over again? Where is the joy in that? What is there to look forward to? Endless suffering? I do not think it will bring joy to our life to teach about a universe like that.

Why is there any need for the universe to provide "joy" to humans, who occupy one tiny planet in one tiny solar system in one particular galaxy among billions or trillions covering vast light years of distance in space? It is our job as humans to find joy in life on our little planet via all of the activities, beliefs, explorations, search for knowledge, interactions with other people etc. that humans engage in.

The universe doesn't owe us any particular emotion and doesn't care that we exist, and itself has no emotional component like "joy." Teaching that is not good or bad ... it is just the way things work and is described by physics, chemistry, biology and the other sciences. Why do you believe the universe should be "joyful"?

[William]

[Replying to post 38 by Bust Nak]

Then by all means drop the eternal tag.

So you don't want to assume any longer that the BB is eternal?

A BB that does not have a beginning still needs no explanation.

Why not?

The subject, "What Came Before the Big Bang?' (Google it) would disagree with your assumption that the BB had no beginning. Perhaps you should deal with that rather than sticking with this assumption.

The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking talks about this, so it is worth the read in relation to this discussion we are having.

Right, and the same razor cuts out that one creator.

Perhaps, in strictly scientific terms to do with the physical universe, it MAY do, but not in philosophical terms, and until science can answer the question, the philosophical remains relevant.

Indeed, due to the otherwise magical thinking of the universe just 'appearing' explanation, the option of a creative eternal being as the best explanation would have to be Occum's choice....the better choice to make.

In regard to science, what happened before the BB has to be disregarded and the focus has to be upon what is observable and theories built on these, but in philosophical terms the question remains open.
Even that in scientific regard the question has to be disregarded, this follows that one is not claiming that a creator isn't responsible for this. It simply means that such questions have to be discarded by the scientific community because there is no scientific method to make the call and answer the question.

Stephen Hawking of course, wants to provide an explanation which does away with the idea that there is something outside of this universe, so he introduces the idea of something he calls 'imaginary time' which allows for the universe to have a beginning (which he believes it does) but also allows for the idea that the universe is a complete self contained system - and as such does not require having to be created. Even so, this in itself does not mean that it still wasn't.

Even then there is no saying that there isn't any 'outside' to the universe and it is obvious Stephen is set on finding a way in which the question is answered, through saying that it isn't applicable because the universe is a self contained thing - and exists because it created itself (MT) 'at the beginning'.

It is also obvious that Stephen is presenting the atheists version of how the universe became wherein he needs to find a way to establish that the universe can be explained without any 'outside' creator.

The better path to take - scientifically speaking - is not to assume either as being the case and get on with discovering what one is able to, in what one actually can observe and measure.

[Bust Nak]

So you don't want to assume any longer that the BB is eternal?

No, I don't want to assume that.

Why not?

You tell me. Why does God not need a creator?

The subject, "What Came Before the Big Bang?' (Google it) would disagree with your assumption that the BB had no beginning. Perhaps you should deal with that rather than sticking with this assumption.

The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking talks about this, so it is worth the read in relation to this discussion we are having.

Yes, it is worth reading, especially when he the same thing I am saying - it's right there in the title "the beginning of time."

Perhaps, in strictly scientific terms to do with the physical universe, it MAY do, but not in philosophical terms, and until science can answer the question, the philosophical remains relevant.

That's good enough for me, this is the science part of the forums after all.

Indeed, due to the otherwise magical thinking of the universe just 'appearing' explanation, the option of a creative eternal being as the best explanation would have to be Occum's choice....the better choice to make.

How is it better though?

In regard to science, what happened before the BB has to be disregarded and the focus has to be upon what is observable and theories built on these...

Seriously, go read that piece by Hawking.

It simply means that such questions have to be discarded by the scientific community because there is no scientific method to make the call and answer the question.

Because there is no need, hence the razor.

The better path to take - scientifically speaking - is not to assume either as being the case and get on with discovering what one is able to, in what one actually can observe and measure.

But that IS the atheists version of how the universe became wherein the universe can be explained without any 'outside' creator.

[William]

[Replying to post 46 by Bust Nak]

A BB that does not have a beginning still needs no explanation.

Why not?

The subject, "What Came Before the Big Bang?' (Google it) would disagree with your assumption that the BB had no beginning. Perhaps you should deal with that rather than sticking with this assumption.

You tell me. Why does God not need a creator?

I already answered that question.

That wasn't what I was asking. What I was asking you was 'why does BB that does not have a beginning still need no explanation when the question of what was before the BB is still accepted as part of the generic theory of the BB?'

Yes, it is worth reading, especially when he the same thing I am saying - it's right there in the title "the beginning of time."

\

The title does not give an answer as to your contradictory assertion that the BB existed forever before it came into existence as the event which began time.

That's good enough for me, this is the science part of the forums after all.

Science and theology actually.
Perhaps you can stick to science in relation to your assertions? Your claim is that the BB has existed forever (as in a timeless state) up until the moment time began, when the theory itself says that the BB was an event which didn't exist until it happened and from that moment time began.

How is it better though?

Because (as I explained) it moves away from magical thinking. Don't you think that makes it better? Occam would.

The better path to take - scientifically speaking - is not to assume either as being the case and get on with discovering what one is able to, in what one actually can observe and measure.

But that IS the atheists version of how the universe became wherein the universe can be explained without any 'outside' creator.

Of course. Except in that science simply places that aside as unanswerable, whereas the atheist claims it as the answer. Atheism assumes one and rejects the other, whereas non atheist-based science does not.

The reason I linked you to Stephen's paper was to show you that even as an atheist scientist he does not claim the BB always existed. At least I could not find any such claim therein - perhaps you did and I missed it?

If so, it shouldn't be hard for you to point me to where in Stephen's paper this is claimed.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 42 by Waterfall]

How is that possible? If you say the universe is doing the same thing over and over again? Where is the joy in that? What is there to look forward to? Endless suffering? I do not think it will bring joy to our life to teach about a universe like that.

It appears that you didn't read or at least didn't understand what I wrote. Please try again and perhaps address points more specifically.

[Waterfall]

[Replying to post 42 by Waterfall]

How is that possible? If you say the universe is doing the same thing over and over again? Where is the joy in that? What is there to look forward to? Endless suffering? I do not think it will bring joy to our life to teach about a universe like that.

It appears that you didn't read or at least didn't understand what I wrote. Please try again and perhaps address points more specifically.

Maybe I do not understand you?

Should I forget that I am living in a joyless universe - a universe that makes me sad? Its like having bad parents who hits me every morning. There is nothing joyfull about that. And I cant do anything about it. Thats the problem whit a universe. It's beyond my pay grade. But fortunately the universe is an open question, right? Why accept/chose bad parents if I dont have to?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 49 by Waterfall]

Should I forget that I am living in a joyless universe - a universe that makes me sad? Its like having bad parents who hits me every morning. There is nothing joyfull about that. And I cant do anything about it. Thats the problem whit a universe. It's beyond my pay grade. But fortunately the universe is an open question, right? Why accept/chose bad parents if I dont have to?

You are not living in a joyless universe. The universe is to all intents and purposes irrelevant to your life. You are living somewhere on this planet and your circumstances are what may be making you sad. I don't understand what else you are saying or what you are trying to communicate. We don't get to choose if we are born or not and we don't get to choose our parents. So what point are you trying to make?