Intelligent Design

[JuniorMintz]

He created a whole branch of science he was incapable of understanding.
He was just a human being, not a freaking god. I care no more what he thought on non relativity subjects as I care what Hannah Montana's favorite book is. Unless I can bang the bad acting out of her, I shouldn't care about her inner most secrets or preferences.

And just where did I say he was a god, or even imply that I thought he was? Don't put words into my mouth.

In other news, the whole "bang the bad acting out of her" bit is seriously creepy.

[Rapscallion]

In other news, the whole "bang the bad acting out of her" bit is seriously creepy.

I noticed that. I assume you meant 'slap' or something similar? Not sure that being a mediocre actress while an early teen is enough to warrant a slap or a punch.

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

And just where did I say he was a god, or even imply that I thought he was? Don't put words into my mouth.

In other news, the whole "bang the bad acting out of her" bit is seriously creepy.

I went a bit silly, sorry.

I just don't understand the hero worship of Einstein. He came up with a bunch of stuff first. Why would his opinions about anything else be interesting?

[Pedersen]

I just don't understand the hero worship of Einstein. He came up with a bunch of stuff first. Why would his opinions about anything else be interesting?

Well, let's see... One of the most common arguments in favor of some sort of god existing is that everything we see is so complex, and fits together so perfectly, that the only way it could have happened was if god created it all.

Einstein was someone who managed to come closer to understanding the makeup of the universe than most people. He understood the actual level of complexity better than you or I or (probably) anybody else on this forum.

If, with all that knowledge and understanding, he explicitly refuted the idea of a god having made the universe, then that is a pretty strong refutation of one of the central arguments in favor of any god.

That is why his opinion carries weight with people trying to figure out if there's a god.

[BroomJockey]

He came up with a bunch of stuff first. Why would his opinions about anything else be interesting?

It wasn't just "coming up with a bunch of stuff." The man was intelligent. Very intelligent. Logical and reasoning. A genius near our times. His experience was not so drastically different from our own. We don't particularly need to extrapolate on how he'd feel given how things are now compared to how things were then.

The recency coupled with the logical abilities and intelligence means that he might be capable of great insight to areas others find murky. There's a fallacy called "appeal to expertise" where you quote a doctor for an opinion about vehicle safety, for instance. The fallacy is that any of his medical training gives him insight to vehicle safety. That doesn't apply to Einstein, because he had a very general, broad intelligence, and people usually wonder his thoughts in context of philosophical musings, which don't require special training.

[Greenday]

Ah, evolution vs. intelligent design. Yes, there is quite a difference. ID is all about blind faith. Evolution involves proof. Evolution is science. ID is nothing close. Heck, evolution and natural selection provide a reason for why everything seems to fit in perfectly together. If it didn't fit in, it'd fail, thus is why it wouldn't have survived.

[Boozy]

I just don't understand the hero worship of Einstein. He came up with a bunch of stuff first. Why would his opinions about anything else be interesting?

The thing to remember about Einstein is that he saw the world differently from you and I, and even from other geniuses. Unlike other theoretical physicists of his time, who relied on mathematics to draw conclusions about the nature of space and time, Einstein was able to intuitively grasp complex concepts -- and worked out all the math later on, almost as an afterhought.

I hope you can appreciate the significance of that. Anyone who knows anything about quantum physics knows that it is inherently unintuitive. The only reason we know about the existence of certain properties is because we can mathematically prove it. A mind that can come up with this stuff independent of those proofs is a marvel.

[Flyndaran]

...

I hope you can appreciate the significance of that. Anyone who knows anything about quantum physics knows that it is inherently unintuitive. The only reason we know about the existence of certain properties is because we can mathematically prove it. A mind that can come up with this stuff independent of those proofs is a marvel.

His big claim to fame, the theory of general and special relativity is not that amazing. Starting from the premise that time itself is mutable and lacking any preferential frame of reference is not that amazing without the math to back it up.
It's the math that separates a genius from a dope smoker waxing philosophic.

Quantum mechanics follows observed data, so ignoring it was a major mental block for him.

If he never lived someone else would have come up with it by now.

[jackfaire]

I agree actually. I love Einstein guy was awesome but coming up with stuff Independent of proofs is what most people do on a friday night after a few drinks. We all come up with stuff independent of proofs.

[Slytovhand]

A) ID isn't against Evolution (regardless of how it might be painted). It's counter is the randomness of existence - that this universe and everything in it were mere chance. ID, in it's best form, goes hand in hand with evolution.. and quite neatly too! (sure, some of the more stupid religious fundies might argue with me on this point, but if they do the research... oh, sorry...)

B) I'd be interested on Einstein's thoughts on bedroom furnishings! (but only for a little while ) To just deny a mind it's various ways of thinking is a little narrow-minded

C) Take the great astro-physicists... they are looking at the beginnings of the universe.. surely they rate a nice mention in the whole idea of things.. and their thoughts on how they think things came together?? If you throw up their thoughts on time, expanding universes, pre-Big Bang, why not throw in a discussion on hypothetical designers? Is there any real way to look at pre-universe stuff? Certainly not now - that's all philosophy.. so ID is just as up there as anything else we're going to get... within the next few hundred years.

Heck, evolution and natural selection provide a reason for why everything seems to fit in perfectly together.

No, not they don't. They provide a picture of how things went. Neither say a thing about how Neutrons work to maintain a (relatively) stable environment in an atom.


Let me ask this then - is it still 'science' (and thus, should be asked in the classroom) if we know we won't be able to get an answer (or even close to an answer) within the next 1000 years? What then, is the difference between 'science' and 'philosophy'?

[Flyndaran]

...
Let me ask this then - is it still 'science' (and thus, should be asked in the classroom) if we know we won't be able to get an answer (or even close to an answer) within the next 1000 years? What then, is the difference between 'science' and 'philosophy'?

Science requires testable theories. Just because we may not have the technology to test them does not make them non-science. Philosophy is thinking about things without real world proof. It's mostly a big wank-a-thon. But from that activity some ideas may sprout that eventually grow to suggest a testable idea and become scientific.

[Ghel]

No, not they don't. They provide a picture of how things went. Neither say a thing about how Neutrons work to maintain a (relatively) stable environment in an atom.

Of course not. Evolution says nothing about nuclear physics. It describes a process by which speciation occurs.

Also, regarding whether Einstein was an atheist, I'd like to point out that it doesn't matter. This is a logical fallacy called the Argument from Authority. Whether Einstein believed in a god does not say anything about whether claims for the existence of a god are true.

[Slytovhand]

Of course not. Evolution says nothing about nuclear physics. It describes a process by which speciation occurs.

That was in regards to Greenday's post on "Heck, evolution and natural selection provide a reason for why everything seems to fit in perfectly together." So, no, they don't, and no, evolution says nothing about physics - and it's physics that provide a reason for why everything seems to fit in perfectly together, not evolution (or biology)

Also, regarding whether Einstein was an atheist, I'd like to point out that it doesn't matter. This is a logical fallacy called the Argument from Authority. Whether Einstein believed in a god does not say anything about whether claims for the existence of a god are true.

Technically, quite correct. For this subject, there's basically no-one who's claims about such existences are really relevant. Unless there are those who have had a direct experience of such a deity (any experience that can't be accounted for otherwise - including my own..). But, historically speaking, I'd place Einstein's thoughts as higher than those of many theologists and philosophers on the topic! At least he had an actual look at this universe that had been apparently 'designed'. The others just talk about it with no real-world experience.

[Ghel]

That was in regards to Greenday's post on "Heck, evolution and natural selection provide a reason for why everything seems to fit in perfectly together." So, no, they don't, and no, evolution says nothing about physics - and it's physics that provide a reason for why everything seems to fit in perfectly together, not evolution (or biology).

Oh, I see what you're saying. I took Greenday's statement to mean that evolution explains why living things seem to fit their environments so well, which is true.