Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:55 am

Manapa,

All of that is you trying to say that a god-thingie is necessary for the origins of life?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19207
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Postby Cittasanto » Wed Jul 29, 2009 12:20 pm

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.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5688
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Postby christopher::: » Wed Jul 29, 2009 1:37 pm

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
christopher:::
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Jul 29, 2009 1:41 pm

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

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19207
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Postby Cittasanto » Wed Jul 29, 2009 1:57 pm

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
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5688
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:16 pm

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

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19207
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Postby Cittasanto » Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:31 pm

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!
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5688
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:45 pm

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

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19207
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Postby christopher::: » Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:05 pm

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

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

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
christopher:::
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:10 pm

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

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19207
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Postby Cittasanto » Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:25 pm

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
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5688
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:34 pm

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

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19207
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Postby christopher::: » Wed Jul 29, 2009 4:18 pm

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
christopher:::
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Jul 29, 2009 4:27 pm

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

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19207
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Postby christopher::: » Wed Jul 29, 2009 4:38 pm

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
User avatar
christopher:::
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Jul 29, 2009 4:42 pm

christopher::: wrote:
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.


Sure, but as long as the two sphere do not get conflated, not a problem.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19207
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Postby clw_uk » Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:46 pm

The whole point of evolution is that it shows ho you get complex life without invoking a god or anything supernatural


As for abiogenesis there isnt a set theory yet (as far as im aware) but the theory of a god behind it isnt going to help the investigation since you put forth and answer to the question that cant be falsified or tested for in any way. It would be no different than me saying life began because of a batman/unicorn monster. There is also not a shred of evidence for it, hence why it comes down to personal beliefs


If we go to the big bang, no we dont know the ins and outs of how it began at the very very begining or what came before but once again, saying "god did it" or "i think god did it" doesnt solve anything and doesnt actually explain anything at all. There is however some scientific ideas about the "pre-universe" via brane cosmology



Life evolved without an agent, no reason why the univese needs and agent in order to function and produce things or have an angent to begin it


I dont mind the whole deist philosophical arguments but not the theists and deists who try to push their beliefs into science


Its interesting that ID has never produced any evidence for its bold claims other than "this is the only way i think it can be"
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Postby clw_uk » Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:53 pm

We can finds lots of things to debunk in Creationism, but that's really only a fringe group
.

Like "Intelligent Design"
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Postby clw_uk » Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:59 pm

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.




Do you believe in Ra, Hathor, Zeus?


Do you believe in Vampires, fairies or the magical fish that grants wishes?


Do you believe in dragons wizards and unicorns or mermaids?


Im betting the answer is no yet you cant absolutely know that they dont exist. You cant get something and say "look this shows that they dont exist anywhere in the universe". In reality none of us can know completely if there are such things we can only go on evidence and the probability of said things existing which is so low that you can be in safe waters to deny they exist or ever did exist


If i said there is a purple elephant in my room called jimmy who speaks french, you would not believe me (i hope) and would deny its existence. However you have no way of completely knowing that there isnt an elephant called jimmy in my room you can only go on the probabilty which is so low its safe to dismiss it. Now if you wanted to be strict about this you would have to admit you cant know there is no elephant in my room but in reality its a safe bet to say there isnt one



I cant say to anyone "there is no god" just as i cant say "there is a god" all i can do is go on evidence and probability which leads us to the conclusions that its very unlikely that there is a god. This is the natural outcome of rational thinking which is why god beliefs fall back on faith, its also why belief in god began to decline after the Enlightenment

If we are being scientific i cant say "god didnt make the universe" any more than someone can say "he did make the unverse" we can only go on evidence and scientific investigation to discover what made the universe happen

IDers dont follow that, they say "god made it happen" despite the fact there is no evidence or way of knowing this, hence its belief and faith and not science in anyway, thats why ID is ignored in scientific circles (and rightly so) and is left to religions and philosophy (rightly so)

metta
Last edited by clw_uk on Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:49 pm, edited 3 times in total.
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism

Postby clw_uk » Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:13 pm

Is that so!

no middle ground there at all? and are you sure?



Intelligent Design is creationism since you claim something created the universe


There are different shades of Creationism, i agree. Some are more out there in their claims, such as man walked with dinosaurs and the world is 6,000 years old. Others have less bizzare claims (the deist camp) but its still not science its philosophy and personal belief, not science (which is what IDers want it to be called)


metta
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: palchi and 1 guest