Originally Posted by Archalen
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I am pleasantly surprised; you responded very descriptively and non-defensively. Unfortunately, I don't think I have enough time to adequately discuss every point made here, but I will bring up some issues. I am trying to understand why "intelligent design" is a compelling explanatory theory. Firstly, if starting from scratch, I would have to tease out what is meaningful in your discussion. To do that, I would need technical notions defined with the context of your explanatory theory.
For instance, you use the word "creative" a lot. It almost sounds like "creative," the way you use it in "creative force" and "creative mind," could fit a number of specific definitions. In context, it sounded like a mere complement (I use this technical notion "complement" the way statisticians use it) to "randomness" and "time." You also mentioned that love, consciousness, and moral absolutes belong to the subset of spiritual and creative forces, but you still didn't define exactly what they mean. So far, it's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I don't understand exactly what I'm trying to believe. If you are using "creative" merely as it is defined in a dictionary, we can discuss that, but I would like a specific definition.
Also, I take issue with your understanding of entropy. This is one word you have employed which has a very meaningful technical notion. However, you used the term incorrectly. This law of thermodynamics refers to a closed system, and the earth cannot be isolated as a closed system in this context. For instance, an explanatory theory such as evolution would not violate this law, since the burning of the sun's "fuel" would represent a far greater increase in entropy than the decrease signified by evolution.
I will tell you that by employing the scientific method, we are necessarily dedicated to it's limitations. Namely, that we are merely organisms with a limited cognitive scope. However, this admission doesn't necessarily prove anything within intelligent design, and it doesn't disprove scientific theories, it is just an admission.
I absolutely agree that people who believe in intelligent design can be reasonable and logical. Einstein had a loose notion of God, and it sounded a lot like intelligent design. It is worth noting though that his revolutionary papers in 1905 were all the culmination of a mastery of interplay between mathematical formalism and physical intuition (he referred to intuition basically as the result of previous intellectual learning and experiences), and that in fact his notion that "God does not play with dice" was a big factor in his decision to reject quantum mechanics and pursue a unified field theory until his dying day, which was a dead end road. I think that is very instructive.
|
09-25-2014, 07:24 PM
Threaded Mode