Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
Post Reply
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Post by tiltbillings »

Manapa,

All of that is you trying to say that a god-thingie is necessary for the origins of life?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Post by Cittasanto »

tiltbillings wrote:Manapa,

All of that is you trying to say that a god-thingie is necessary for the origins of life?
no its not, all it is is me being open to the possibility instead of closing the opportunity to understand a certian aspect of existance fully.
to borrow from the bible 'the fool in his heart says there is no god' I would say 'the fool in there heart says there is a god, or no god without evidence based on knowable phenomena'
just think of the advances made because people didn't close doors, lock them and throw away the keys because they followed there own conditioning.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Post by christopher::: »

mikenz66 wrote:
christopher::: wrote: How do you explain the laws of gravity, electromagnitism, strong and weak nuclear forces? Scientists talk of a need for a Unified Theory of Everything. A Creative Intelligence beyond the Universe can be one such theory.
Not to be too condescending, but unless you have taken graduate level courses in physics any opinions you might have about the strengths and weaknesses of modern physics are, frankly, irrelevant. Not that I would discourage you from reading accounts of it...

O course, there are weaknesses. And strengths. Last semester I showed my students how the spin of the electron, and how that spin interacts with a magnetic field (the "g value"), arises naturally from Dirac's relativistic quantum mechanics of 1928. In another semester or two they might have some vague idea how to calculate the electrodynamic corrections to the "g value" that give an agreement between theory and experiment to better than one part in ten to the power of ten. But why does it work like that? Why that particular equation (and the other interactions in the Standard Model)?

I don't know, of course, but I'm confident that the next next advance, like the "modern physics" revolution (which is over 100 years old!) will come from people who (like Einstein, Rutherford, etc) actually understand the technicalities.

Metta
Mike
Hi Mike. You said that "Last semester I showed my students how the spin of the electron, and how that spin interacts with a magnetic field (the "g value"), arises naturally from Dirac's relativistic quantum mechanics of 1928."...

Where did Dirac's relativistic quantum mechanics come from, so that electrons spin as they do? You say that these dynamics arise naturally from quantum mechanics. I think for scientists this is enough of an explanation, but there is still the question of why the Universe works the way it does, why these laws and properties exist.

True, I have not studied physics deeply at all, but I have studied systems theories, at the graduate school level, so I have an interest in these issues.
mikenz66 wrote:
Manapa wrote:I think ID should be looked at along side Evolution etc, not in science class ...
But as Individual says, that's what the ID people want. To call it Science. I don't think science has all the answers, but in a science class we teach science. When we run a course on cosmology should we talk about the Christian, Islam, Hindu, or Buddhist versions of the history of the Universe? What would be the point?

Mike
This is probably something best done by public television, like PBS or the BBC, in my opinion. Cause we are definitely talking about topics that don't fit into the neat categories our culture employs for dividing up the Universe.
Last edited by christopher::: on Wed Jul 29, 2009 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Post by tiltbillings »

Manapa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Manapa,

All of that is you trying to say that a god-thingie is necessary for the origins of life?
no its not, all it is is me being open to the possibility instead of closing the opportunity to understand a certian aspect of existance fully.
to borrow from the bible 'the fool in his heart says there is no god' I would say 'the fool in there heart says there is a god, or no god without evidence based on knowable phenomena'
just think of the advances made because people didn't close doors, lock them and throw away the keys because they followed there own conditioning.
The interesting this about ID, even if one could scientifically prove it, what kind of god/intelligent designer do we conclude from its design.

When asked what could be inferred about the work of the Creator from a study of His works, the British geneticist and evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane is reported to have replied, that He has "an inordinate fondness for beetles."

Speaking of conditioning, my conditioning was god centered, including several profound god centered mystical experiences. I was surrounded by this in my Catholic upbringing. Interestingly, it was the deconditioning process of the Buddha’s teachings and practice that allowed me to see the idea of god in a very different light: as product of one’s own needs and desires, though highly refined, spiritualized, and self-effacing as they are portrayed as being.

As for finding a scientifically falsifiable intelligent designer, good luck with that.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Post by Cittasanto »

tiltbillings wrote:Speaking of conditioning, my conditioning was god centered, including several profound god centered mystical experiences. I was surrounded by this in my Catholic upbringing. Interestingly, it was the deconditioning process of the Buddha’s teachings and practice that allowed me to see the idea of god in a very different light: as product of one’s own needs and desires, though highly refined, spiritualized, and self-effacing as they are portrayed as being.

As for finding a scientifically falsifiable intelligent designer, good luck with that.
So your deconditioning wasn't followed by a reconditioning of fabrications then?
we are all conditioned, the conditions may change but don't mistake conditioning into a new set of beliefs as finding actual truth, it is a refabrication not a deconditioning of conditions.

I am not looking but do see a purpose in looking at ALL possibilaties openly without reprisal from idiots whos argument is allong the line of this
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Post by tiltbillings »

So your deconditioning wasn't followed by a reconditioning of fabrications then?
Do you mean, am I making a claim something like this: states of deprivation destitution the bad states are ended I am headed for self-awakening! I now belong not to the lineage of the Kilesas but to the lineage of the noble ones?
we are all conditioned, the conditions may change but don't mistake conditioning into a new set of beliefs as finding actual truth, it is a refabrication not a deconditioning of conditions.
You are really not in a place to lecture me here.

As for god, one can certainly let go of a god concept by seeing its structure without needing to substitute something else in its place and without making any sort of spiritual claim about oneself.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Post by Cittasanto »

tiltbillings wrote:
So your deconditioning wasn't followed by a reconditioning of fabrications then?
Do you mean, am I making a claim something like this: states of deprivation destitution the bad states are ended I am headed for self-awakening! I now belong not to the lineage of the Kilesas but to the lineage of the noble ones?
Did I say you were making such claims?
I have that in my signature not as a claim but as a combination of passages and quotes I find useful to remember
we are all conditioned, the conditions may change but don't mistake conditioning into a new set of beliefs as finding actual truth, it is a refabrication not a deconditioning of conditions.
You are really not in a place to lecture me here.
is that so? and how?
could be reversed quite easily don't you think.
As for god, one can certainly let go of a god concept by seeing its structure without needing to substitute something else in its place and without making any sort of spiritual claim about oneself.
or of others!
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Post by tiltbillings »

Manapa wrote:Did I say you were making such claims?
Damdifino. It is not always clears what your point is.

At this point, this little digression serve little purpose. I would suggest that we get back to topic.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Post by christopher::: »

Wikipedia has a little page concerning what some are calling "The Epic of Evolution."...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Evolution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This differs from Creationism, in that the story of the Universe is the one given by science. There is similarity however in that its told as a story, of how all that is has come to be. A story that has been embraced by people who believe in God, as well as those who don't. Excerpt from the National Academy of Sciences, as given over at Wikipedia...
The debate is sometimes portrayed as being between science and religion. However, as the National Academy of Sciences states:

“Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts. ”


— - Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences
We can finds lots of things to debunk in Creationism, but that's really only a fringe group.

:namaste:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Post by tiltbillings »

christopher::: wrote:
We can finds lots of things to debunk in Creationism, but that's really only a fringe group.
As is ID, which is a direct outgrowth of the Morris-Gishian type of creationism. Same lady of ill-repute, different kimono.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Post by Cittasanto »

tiltbillings wrote:
Manapa wrote:Did I say you were making such claims?
Damdifino. It is not always clears what your point is.

At this point, this little digression serve little purpose. I would suggest that we get back to topic.
my point was you just swapped the direction you looked from, and I see little topic open to discussion without it being allong the lines of the video above
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Post by tiltbillings »

Manapa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Manapa wrote:Did I say you were making such claims?
Damdifino. It is not always clears what your point is.

At this point, this little digression serve little purpose. I would suggest that we get back to topic.
my point was you just swapped the direction you looked from, and I see little topic open to discussion without it being allong the lines of the video above
Thank you for sharing that with me, but I am not the topic here. Back to the topic, please.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Post by christopher::: »

tiltbillings wrote:
christopher::: wrote:
We can finds lots of things to debunk in Creationism, but that's really only a fringe group.
As is ID, which is a direct outgrowth of the Morris-Gishian type of creationism. Same lady of ill-repute, different kimono.
There's a lot of variety out there. (See for example Theistic evolutionists). By and large the majority of "believers" accept the evidence of Science, and are adapting their conceptions of God to it, "creatively"...

From that Wikipedia link:

"Dr.John Haught, Roman Catholic theologian, in his Science and Religion: from Conflict to Conversation suggests a theistic acceptance of the Epic. He says contemporary theology is being changed by evolutionary science. There are many versions undergoing constant revision. He considers evolution to be, at least provisionally, a most appropriate and fruitful scientific framework within which to think about God today and deplores that contemporary theology gets hung up in the creationism controversy. There are liberal congregations these days that may see the Epic of Evolution as a history about life and the Universe that is both scientific and sacred. The profoundly sacred elements of the story warm up the cold technical facts with awe and reverence, giving Nature an inspiring beauty."

:smile:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Post by tiltbillings »

christopher::: wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
christopher::: wrote:
We can finds lots of things to debunk in Creationism, but that's really only a fringe group.
As is ID, which is a direct outgrowth of the Morris-Gishian type of creationism. Same lady of ill-repute, different kimono.
There's a lot of variety out there. (See for example Theistic evolutionists). By and large the majority of "believers" accept the evidence of Science, and are adapting their conceptions of God to it, "creatively"...

From that Wikipedia link:

"Dr.John Haught, Roman Catholic theologian, in his Science and Religion: from Conflict to Conversation suggests a theistic acceptance of the Epic. He says contemporary theology is being changed by evolutionary science. There are many versions undergoing constant revision. He considers evolution to be, at least provisionally, a most appropriate and fruitful scientific framework within which to think about God today and deplores that contemporary theology gets hung up in the creationism controversy. There are liberal congregations these days that may see the Epic of Evolution as a history about life and the Universe that is both scientific and sacred. The profoundly sacred elements of the story warm up the cold technical facts with awe and reverence, giving Nature an inspiring beauty."

:smile:
That is nice, but it is not science. It is religion, which is fine in that context.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Post by christopher::: »

tiltbillings wrote:
That is nice, but it is not science. It is religion, which is fine in that context.
It's how religion is adapting to Science, which is very much related to what i thought we've been talking about.
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
Post Reply