It's about fucking time.

http://www.amazon.com/Uncommon-Dissent-Intellectuals-Darwinism-Unconvincing/dp/1932236317

What does Amazon say?

The book is apparently more diverse than a bunch of Christians trying to defend their beliefs, and even includes non-theistic views. One of the writers is Chris Langan. Google his name and watch the 3-part youtube video; he's famous for being the "smartest man in America" with an IQ in the 200 range.

Much like ArmsMerchant and other mystics, he seems to believe in a fundamental Oneness. (at least in the youtube vids)

Err... No.

It's a bunch of essays, most of which by people that don't hold degrees in Biology or do any scientific research (or anything related to evolution), complaining about evolution. Some of the essays don't even end up supporting ID, but just complaining about some aspects of evolution.


If that's the most logical case for Intelligent Design, then that's pathetic.

P.S. As for Langan, "geniuses" say erroneous things all the time.

Err...don't even end up supporting ID, but just complaining about some aspects of evolution...


That describes the whole of the ID movement in a nutshell.

I ordered the book, just to read the essays. (I have leftover Amazon credits from X-mas :D)

*reserves space until book ships*

Intelligent design overcomplicates things in an attempt to make creationism believable. Darwinism is a far simpler and more likely explanation. The amazon page says that the experts "dislike the random chance nature of darwinism" - this shows their erroneous idea that darwinism relies on the organism randomly improving, when in actual fact it changes randomly in all directions, but there is essentially a "saving mechanism" (survival of the fittest) which only stores the good changes.

ID is just a bunch of creationists who realise they are wrong and have come up with some vastly overcomplicated arguments to try and justify their beliefs.

This looks really interesting.
Darwinian evolution does not seem complete in my mind.
I believe there is a cosmic balance between the physical and metaphysical. When we say all there is to it is random mutations we are putting to much weight on the physical and neglecting the less observable metaphysical side.
I strongly believe that empirical logic is not the pinnacle of evolution.

Err... No.

It's a bunch of essays, most of which by people that don't hold degrees in Biology or do any scientific research (or anything related to evolution), complaining about evolution. Some of the essays don't even end up supporting ID, but just complaining about some aspects of evolution.


If that's the most logical case for Intelligent Design, then that's pathetic.

P.S. As for Langan, "geniuses" say erroneous things all the time.

Lol, I hadn't fully examined my own link before posting that. It just sounded good.

Yeah, one of the purposes of the book is not just to try and support ID, but to also call into question evolution.

Personally I believe in evolution, but I think it will be an interesting read.

You're right about there being not much of a case for Intelligent Design. However, judging by the review this seems to be a reasonable attack on Darwinian theories. I never said it was the most logical case for intelligent design (although it probably is since i've seen virtually no solid ID arguments)

EDIT: AngryFemme, you often display fairly discerning, rational viewpoints. when you get the book, tell me if it has anything of value?

Err... No.
As for Langan, "geniuses" say erroneous things all the time.

I agree, after watching youtube vids some of his ideas are highly dubious and claims highly questionable. For example, he supports a form of eugenics which he ever-so-sweetly calls "anti-dysgenics" and he claims to be the closest to absolute truth that any man has ever been. How do you objectively assess that?

I'm betting that with his Cognitive-Theoretical Model of the Universe, he just developed a closed system and used duductive logic based on certain axioms (rather than inductive) logic to come to his "absolute truth", but perhaps I'm underestimating him.

Another of his more dubious claims is that he's trying to prove that "God" exists. How does one prove a transcendent God?

Intelligent design overcomplicates things in an attempt to make creationism believable. Darwinism is a far simpler and more likely explanation. The amazon page says that the experts "dislike the random chance nature of darwinism" - this shows their erroneous idea that darwinism relies on the organism randomly improving, when in actual fact it changes randomly in all directions, but there is essentially a "saving mechanism" (survival of the fittest) which only stores the good changes.

ID is just a bunch of creationists who realise they are wrong and have come up with some vastly overcomplicated arguments to try and justify their beliefs.

I imagine that these people aren't your typical creationists. they would be aware of what you refer to as the "saving mechanism". Of course with some form of evolution unguided by natural selection, life wouldnt have gotten anywhere.

they also come from diverse backgrounds, with some (such as Langan) actually believing in evolution [which is rather odd considering that he would contribute to such a book]. they aren't all christians either

and yes im well aware that ID is for the most part Christians attempting (and failing) to justify their belief in a literal creation

What of us Christians that believe both creation and evolution to be correct?

What do you mean by "Creation"?

What do you mean by "Creation"?

God created it all.

The correct term would be, "theistic evolution".

I wouldn't be surprised if the book discussed it.

The correct term would be, "theistic evolution".

I wouldn't be surprised if the book discussed it.

That sounds...empty. I say 'God created it all' because it carries the connotation of It being a conscious entity. Theistic evolution could as well describe my belief as a deist's.

I should mention that it doesn't include the views of Young Earth creationism.

According to one reviewer it is "written from the perspective of a leader in the Intelligent Design Movement, by virtually ignoring the opinions of Young Earth Creationists..."

God created it all.

As we see it now? Then you don't believe in the scientific theory of evolution.

I should mention that it doesn't include the views of Young Earth creationism.

According to one reviewer it is "written from the perspective of a leader in the Intelligent Design Movement, by virtually ignoring the opinions of Young Earth Creationists..."

That's because Young Earth Creationism is complete and utter bullshit, and the majority of its "experts" are morons, crazy or charlatans.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

Game Over on Intelligent Design

The contributors invoke mathematics and statistics to support their theory that an "intelligent cause is necessary to explain at least some of the diversity of life.

Looks like they don't even fully believe their own arguements

Looks like they don't even fully believe their own arguements

They needn't take one extreme or the other. Like I said, these aren't your typical fundie Christians. Their views ARE somewhere in the middle I guess, and that IS their argument

^ Well that's sort of the least extreme, and less common, wing of ID.

Most ID proponents are creationists that have given up on trying to directly insert creationism into the classroom because of all the legal battles it has lost, and instead have chosen to use ID as a wedge: to force ID into the Science classroom to soften-up the curriculum for creationism in the future. Ultimately, they believe in biblical creationism and are using ID for their sleazy purposes. Like those people who were caught literally removing the words "God" and "Creationism" in a creationist book and exchanging them (i.e. copying + pasting in their place) the words "Intelligent Designer" and "Intelligent Design".

However, there are some out there that don't take the hardline creationist stance and are willing to admit that evolution can explain many things - they just don't want to admit it can explain all of it. Michael Behe comes to mind. He'll say that irreducible complexity would be an example of when a designer must be invoked to explain things (of course, this has been refuted numerous times now). That's probably what that blurb was referring to.

Ah, yes. The teleological argument.

I don't see how it necessitates a designer. The order in our universe could be attributed to any number of things... probably things we don't even understand yet.

Out of curiousity, what do you attribute the order in the universe to?

I know very little about this sort of thing. My first guess would be that it works something like a self-sustaining ecosystem or natural selection. Chaotic order?

http://www.legorobotcomics.com/comics/14.jpg

As we see it now? Then you don't believe in the scientific theory of evolution.

Yes, God created it as it is now...and now...and now...and now. In the reasoning system I have: When it first was made, it was a big ball of bullshit that has turned into what we now live in. He constantly creates it.

So then you don't believe in the scientific theory of evolution.

Yes, God created it as it is now...and now...and now...and now. In the reasoning system I have: When it first was made, it was a big ball of bullshit that has turned into what we now live in. He constantly creates it.

So you're saying God is constantly guiding evolution (directly)?

I think the fact that if you expose bacteria or whatever to a medicine long enough, and it develops a resistance to it, is just one piece of evidence of natural selection which helps to subsequently build a case for evolution.

When we pretty much know the NATURAL mechanisms behind evolution, how does God fit into the process?

And beyond mere guesswork, how do you know that God is guiding evolution? Are you so arrogant to say that you know what God does and doesn't do in htat much intimate detail?

Read the Book of Job. Specifically the part where God humbles Job in his reply.

We All create our realities every moment of everyday. Within everything we create is a certain trait which we have carried with us in every thought, action, feeling, and emotion we express since the moment we enter creation. We choose how we express this trait of creation, weather we expand our positive traits and neutralize the negative, or we dwell in the negative, and neutralize the positive. We individually choose how we will personally evolve while others choose how they will personally evolve within these traits of creation. Some are forceful with their creation while others express practicality, some are the thoughtful type, while others create through emotion. We all have a piece of creation within us, a piece of the oneness which effects everything we do.

Now we must ask ourselves why? Why are we born with these traits? We choose how we create our reality based on these unique traits we All have. Some like to dumb down the concept of creation and say ,"Random mutations." Others like to dumb it down by saying, "Intelligent design." Does it really matter what we call creation? Whatever symbol our meager minds come up with will never come near an accurate description of the beauty of creation.

^
...
Some like to spread bullshit, dress it up with terms like "creation" and other non-sense, and then belittle evidence-based study and conclusions as "dumbing things down", as if making up bullshit and providing no evidence somehow elevated intellectual discourse!

What part of it is "bullshit"^
That we create our reality?
If you don't see evidence for that then you are blind.

"We create our reality" is a vauge, ridiculous statement. It doesn't tell anyone anything.

For example, is gravity part of "our reality"? Do we create gravity and/or its effect on us? What does "create" even mean in this context? Depending on how you abuse the English language, you can weasel your way towards anything you want.

"We create our reality" is a vauge, ridiculous statement. It doesn't tell anyone anything.
It depends on how you react to the statement. If you don't want to hear anything you won't.


For example, is gravity part of "our reality"?
Yes

Do we create gravity and/or its effect on us?The universe [(one swirling (entity)] that we are a piece of creates gravity.

What does "create" even mean in this context?
The act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating.
To evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.


Depending on how you abuse the English language, you can weasel your way towards anything you want.Entertain me Rust, weasel your way towards a universe without creation.

It depends on how you react to the statement. If you don't want to hear anything you won't.

Who said I don't want to hear anything?

The statement says nothing, because it's specific about nothing. The only way to "hear" anything is to make a bunch of assumptions about a single one-liner. You might like doing that, I don't.


The universe [(one swirling (entity)] that we are a piece of creates gravity
...

The act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating.
To evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.So we don't create gravity then? Because, according to you, the universe creates gravity, not us. We're not synonymous with the universe - just like a drop of water isn't synonymous with the ocean and all it contains even though it's a part of it .



Entertain me Rust, weasel your way towards a universe without creation.Again, more vague, meaningless statements.

Who said anything about an "universe without creation"? What do you even mean by that? Do you mean a universe where nothing has been created? I believe many things have been created, why would I have to do what you request?

Saying that "we create our reality" is a vague statement that can be used to support a long list of ridiculous things does not mean I am claiming nothing has been created.

I believe we have created a lot of things. Human beings affecting the universe in some way (like creating something) does not mean "we create our reality". The former is supported by evidence and just simple existence here on Earth, the latter reeks of bullshit - like something you'd hear from that idiotic book, "The Secret".

By "we create our own reality" do you mean we create our own perception of reality?

In my view our perception of reality is not shaped largely by free will, but for the most part by genetic factors, life experiences, and other environmental influences.

Does a schizophrenic willingly choose their perception of reality? Nahh. Their mind is fucking with them and it's our of their control. Just one example that not everyone creates their own perception of reality.

Unless you meant something different. This is what happens when you make vague statements that will inevitably be interpereted by different people in many different ways.

Your posts can be annoying to read at times. Lay off it a bit with the ego-boosting mystical speak. I thought one of the main goals of mysticism-themed belief systems tended to be the transcendence of the ego.

EDIT: What Rust said.

So you're saying God is constantly guiding evolution (directly)?

I think the fact that if you expose bacteria or whatever to a medicine long enough, and it develops a resistance to it, is just one piece of evidence of natural selection which helps to subsequently build a case for evolution.

When we pretty much know the NATURAL mechanisms behind evolution, how does God fit into the process?

And beyond mere guesswork, how do you know that God is guiding evolution? Are you so arrogant to say that you know what God does and doesn't do in htat much intimate detail?

Read the Book of Job. Specifically the part where God humbles Job in his reply.

Does not God also say that Job spoke rightly of God? I do not know the absolute splendor of God, but I do know that He controls absolutely everything. It is humility to recognize that I do not control anything, nor am I aware of much, nor am I present in much. God is.

When we pretty much know the NATURAL mechanisms behind evolution, how does God fit into the process?

In simple terms of cause and effect, would not God's creation of the first condition guide every condition since, even if unaware of its' guidance?

And beyond mere guesswork, how do you know that God is guiding evolution?

Know? I know nothing except for 'God is.' It is what I've experienced though. God guides all growth, from start to end.

So you're saying God is constantly guiding evolution (directly)?

Yes. Absolutely nothing happens without God.

Yes. Absolutely nothing happens without God.

God controls everything? As in total control? 'Absolutely nothing happens without God?' So no free will? God was really controlling Adam to eat that forbidden fruit, then God punished him for it anyway? You did after all say ABSOLUTELY everything. That means every atom in Adam's body and brain.

Your belief that God controls absolutely everything seems unfounded. God's omnipotent and it seems (biblically) that he left some things to their own devices - such as Adam having the choice whether to eat the forbidden fruit or not (assuming we are talking about the Christian God in general here).

"In simple terms of cause and effect, would not God's creation of the first condition guide every condition since, even if unaware of its' guidance?"

Yes, God could be the first cause of all things (including evolution). That's a more reasonable claim to make.

But that's not controlling evolution directly. That's starting something and then letting it develop on its own, without constant direct guidance every time natural selection is at play.

Know? I know nothing except for 'God is.' It is what I've experienced though. God guides all growth, from start to end.

Good choice, I very much believe that a real God would be transcendent. Experience isn't a reliable indicator for absolute truth ie. whether God is truly guiding evolution or if you merely believe that to be the case and your underlying premesis for this belief turn out to be misguided. Then again, what is a reliable indicator for absolute truth??

HOWEVER, just because experience isn't a reliable indicator of absolute truth, this doesn't necessarily negate your experience-based evidence. I think after some point in time of our learning, a good road to take is one where we should move beyond skepticism and set our own standards for truth - even if that truth turns out not to be absolutely correct. Your standard for truth is what you have experienced. It does lie on shaky ground, because people have attributed their experiences to many different things and the 'truth' they discovered by doing this turned out to be totally off-base.

but from a utilitarian perspective... I'm happy for you. :) In another thread [Buddhism: Your Daily Meditation] I sort of explained this.


"I agree that skepticism is a roadblock to progress. If you think you can truly believe it, better to just go with something that makes you feel good/best suits you and even if it is false, at least you had a positive/happy perception of the world and a minimization of suffering during the time you were alive. For example, believing in God gives people hope.

I'd be willing to guess that we're all equally deluded anyway since I can't see humans being able to attain absolute truth. Why not at least make your illusiary perception of reality a positive one?"

Yes, He controls absolutely everything, in my experience, at least. Can I explain in my lifetime why that does not contradict concepts like volition, sin, forgiveness, and so on? No, I cannot. It has taken me a long time just to come to that. Putting it into words would take longer than all of mankind's lives strung into a single life could afford.

You will come to it in due time, but I am not the one to show it.

So God is controlling every word that comes out of our mouths, your beliefs, my beliefs etc...

It seems to me rather odd that God would kill, starve and brutally torture millions of people and small children.

'God is love', right? lol..

And not in the least a little odd that God would control the Isrealites to go against him and worship false Gods after commanding 'Thou shalt not have other Gods before me'

And then he would control the Isrealites thoughts and emotions as well.. whether they are repentent, whether they are not.. in your scenario we're all just puppets.. why would God even want mere puppets? I thought he created people to bring glory to him.. if hes controlling what they think and feel then thats hardly true glory is it? It's mere pupperty.

Biblically, there are too many things inconsistent with this belief for me to take it seriously.

But perhaps as you said, I will come to understand this concept in time, without words (if God wills). Though I'm doubtful.

Perhaps it's beyond limited human logic and senses. Imagine that we percieve/work out all things logically in x's and y's. But there are a's and b's out there that we cant even pick up on.

Anyway.. er. I trailed off and dont know how to end this post

/end

Your posts can be annoying to read at times.

Not surprising you would think that.

I thought one of the main goals of mysticism-themed belief systems tended to be the transcendence of the ego.
Never said I was perfect, everyday my energy expands and my understanding increases. I've only attained glimpses, you can't stay on top of the mountain forever.

EDIT: What Rust said.I would love for you to understand conscious creation, I really would. But these thoughts are to abstract for me to coherently express, I've not the time nor the Will to do this. Maybe someday I will, but at the moment I have more important things to create.
You have not studied what I have studied and you probably never will.
Good day Sir, Know I wish you well.

Maybe someday I will, but at the moment I have more important things to create.
You have not studied what I have studied and you probably never will.
Good day Sir, Know I wish you well.

I fully understand that your will doesn't incline you to do so, fair enough.

Be careful about pidgeonholing me in your mind. Because perhaps... perhaps one day I will. I'm only 16, so I have many years to do so. I'm rather inclined toward examining opposing viewpoints/attempting to see how other people understand the world around them, and I'm not so clouded as to uphold my own methods of rationality and logic as the only path to understanding.

I choose to take a science-based/skeptical approach because at this point in time I believe it to be the best - though I can look beyond it. Understand that everything I articulate into words is based upon this approach, but that doesn't mean I will never change my stance or get set in my ways. All things are up for question - nothing is set in stone.

That's how I was around your age.
It's important to look at everything with an open mind. It's also important to use skepticism. But too much of either hinders progress. You must try to understand your feelings and your intuition, not everything can be easily detected by our physical instruments.

So you were trying to spread around some "The Secret" - like bullshit?

'God is love', right? Yes. In the definition of love as pure being for the object of love.

And then he would control the Isrealites thoughts and emotions as well.. whether they are repentent, whether they are not.. in your scenario we're all just puppets.. why would God even want mere puppets?

If I were God, I would tell you.

I thought he created people to bring glory to him.. if hes controlling what they think and feel then thats hardly true glory is it? It's mere pupperty.

"...so that they might be a kind of firstfruits of His creation." We are to bring Him glory...it doesn't mean we get to choose whether or not we do.

Biblically, there are too many things inconsistent with this belief for me to take it seriously.

I don't see any...but okay. If it's ridiculous for you, it's ridiculous for you. Just be a cool dude in a loose mood and you'll be fine.

But perhaps as you said, I will come to understand this concept in time, without words (if God wills). Though I'm doubtful.

If you work towards loving God, the world, and yourself, that which completes this concept will come to complete it.

And I'm just going to trail off as well...

If you work towards loving God, the world, and yourself, that which completes this concept will come to complete it.

If you work towards loving God you will only succeed in transforming yourself into into a docile sheep-like creature that pays 10% of it's income weekly for an hour long show on Sunday morning.

Hexy, to me true glory involves an element of free will. People having free will, then deciding to give glory.

If I 100% controlled people and made them honour me and give me 'glory'.. i just wouldnt regard it as true glory.

It would be the same as trying to get inanimate objects to glorify me - doesn't work. Becuase humans are mere puppets of God

At least over here in Australia we don't have retards teaching ID in schools. I feel sorry for the poor kids who will slowly join the shrinking number on christians in this world.

Don't get me wrong I prefer christians over all the other religions but to try and prove a scientific fact wrong with no proof what so ever is just stupid in the eyes of the scientific community.

Hexy, to me true glory involves an element of free will. People having free will, then deciding to give glory.

If I 100% controlled people and made them honour me and give me 'glory'.. i just wouldnt regard it as true glory.

It would be the same as trying to get inanimate objects to glorify me - doesn't work. Becuase humans are mere puppets of God

It's not about us worshiping God. It's about Him having the Power: that is His Glory; He makes, upholds, and ends absolutely everything. He is truly Alpha and Omega. We don't give God glory...we can't...He already has infinite Glory.

We don't give God faith, or trust, or anything else. He is complete in every way: what we humans often see as 'glorifying' is really just ego-stroking. God doesn't need us to sit down and say, "Oh God, you're the greatest. I'm so unworthy. I'm so shitty; please help me to glorify you!" He doesn't need us to praise him, curse him, worship him, or love him. Truth is, we can't do any of these things. We can watch Him do these things through us.

That's our tiny little power of choice...whether we watch the world through His eyes, or blind eyes. We can see Him, or we can see darkness. Just because we get to make this single choice about every little variation in existence doesn't give us the actual power over what it is, or the ability to glorify God...we simply get to choose whether we're watching a Class A flick or a low-budget piece of shit that makes us wish we weren't in the theater.

You've come across the religious variety that curse the world's sins and all that shit, right? Well, they see through the blind eyes. They choose blindness.

Contrarily, I've come across non-religious variety that bless the world's love, courage, and so on. It seems to me, that they see through His eyes. They have chosen the eyes of Light.

It's not what we call it. It's what it is. If life is for love, it's for love...it becomes bright, lively, easy, and free; if it's for no reason, it is meaningless...it becomes dreary, frightening, boring, difficult, and imprisoning. We get to choose which set in response to absolutely everything that happens. It's hard, sometimes, to choose the eyes of Light when family dies, or hardships come...but the Light can pierce any darkness and work everything for the purpose of love. I can't though...I can either see it work or see misery. That's my will-power. Enjoy it, or despise it.

Good answer.