Intelligent Design vs. Darwin's theory.

[JustCause]

“The entire universe functions on deterministic course with exception of quantum mechanics field. Invariant natural laws of the universe make this possible. Nature is driven by invariant natural laws, no room for 'chance'.â€

 

Socod_badne, I am a bit confused with the above statement of yours, could you clarify it further please?

 

The universe is built from quarks, leptons and so on. Since quantum mechanics applies to these particles, why shouldn’t quantum laws apply to the whole of the universe?

 

I will just say now and don’t have the time to expand on it, that we live in non-deterministic universe! Don’t be like Einstein and say, “God doesn’t play dice with the universe!â€.

[Caano Geel]

Originally posted by JustCause:

 

Socod_badne, I am a bit confused with the above statement of yours, could you clarify it further please?

 

I will just say now and don’t have the time to expand on it, that we live in non-deterministic universe! Don’t be like Einstein and say, “God doesn’t play dice with the universe!â€. [/QB]

i agree, further the basis of evolutionary biology is a non-deterministic process, it doesnt say something will happen, it just comenst on the probability that certain events yield certain outcomes at a higher probability. Now philosopicaly i guess for me at least this would be the weakness (if that), and it relates to the method of argument which is post hoc and says that correlation implies causation.

 

Now interestingly this a logical fallacy and an age old argument. The thing with a logical fallacy is that it is an error that is independent of the truth of the premises that led to the conclusion and dependent only on the structure of the argument.

 

So for example although although data and experimenation support evolution, evolution cant nessecarily be true just because the data supports it, and it holds vice verca with regard to the creationism, i.e. something is, beacuse it is.

[Khayr]

Salamz,

 

SOCOD_BADNE[

Creationists DON'T believe in deterministic world. Afterall, creation theory is inconsistant with natural laws of our world.

Religion says- TO EVERYTHING THERE IS A BEGINNING

 

Science- WE COME FROM NOTHINGNESS AND WE END

IN NOTHINGNESS

 

Creation theory is more consistance with

 

Natural Laws because it states that self evident

 

TRUTH that SCIENTISM wants to DENY

 

 

"TO EVERYTHING THERE IS A BEGINNING AND AN END"

 

TIME IS CYCLIC AND NOT LINEAR ,

so when something Blossoms at one point in TIME,

it has to go through the LIFE CYCLE (Birth, Growth, Death/DECAY)

 

Evolution and Scientism denies this self-evident REALITYYYY!

 

SOCOD_BADNE

There are self-sustaining systems that have neither a cause nor a start!

THAT WOULD MAKE THEM SUPRA, DIVINE, A GOD!

 

and if that is what you are saying, then

 

you are negating TAWHID!!!

 

For if 'There is no Reality (GOD) but the Reality (GOD),

 

There is no Seperation from GOD with what is CREATED, call it Matter or whateva...

 

HOW CAN YOU MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT, especially if

you are a Muslim??? :confused:

 

CASTRO/FIDEL,

until the day god descends onto earth, Darwin's theory, however flawed or incomplete, will hold the upper hand. Until there's no more reliance on any leaps, of faith or otherwise, the knowledge we have of the universe and the tools we've acquired to measure that knowledge will reign supreme.

How could such statements come from a Muslim or a Bani Adam??? :eek:

[Caano Geel]

Khayr, friend i think u might be getting the wrong end of the argument. The point of the space is to discuss not assert. You are richer for knowing and questioning, since you seeing the boundaries of our understanding which make's clearer the role of our faith.

 

The brothers and sisters have posted interesting arguments and fascinating discourses, which present a challange to our social and ethical foundations and that take guts to bring up in our community, for that at least you should commend them ...

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Caano Geel:

Khayrn, friend i think u might be getting the wrong end of the argument.

I second that !!

 

Now, lemme put Socod_badane´s comment

into the original context

 

Deterministic universe is one that runs in conformity with invariant natural laws. These laws predetermine the outcome of every event. There are exception, as I already said, like radioactive decaying and quantum mechanics.

Creationists DON'T believe in deterministic world. Afterall, creation theory is inconsistant with natural laws of our world.

 

Now, in deterministic world, with every effect having a cause, the idea of startless action or effect is impossible. However, it is not an insult to sound judgement to say an effect can have no start. We already observe this fact in our world. There are self-sustaining systems that have neither a cause nor a start!

where earlier i said .

determinisim....->

every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

 

And there comes the needle-eye opening of the creationisim.

Since an endless inevitable reaction yields a meaningless startless action,

the thought of it having no START "somewhere" is an insult to the everage sound judgment which is not based on specialized knowledge("common sense" if u like)

 

Now that you the opening is there and you pointed at it , can you make sure that it won´t get so huge and take over cosmos?

I Understan him , but i don´t agree totally with him. not becouse he misinterprated Determinisim, but in my view Determinisim opens the gate for Creationisim in the sense that the sound judgement of the common sense tells that for something to start it has to be NOT started first, and vice versa , and that includes state of events and actions ( reactions ).

 

and it is that START where the creationisim sneaks in.

[Johnny B]

Bashi ( Garaad ) .. Me n my incoherece , Ngonge n his fruits, Fidel n his remote smile , Socod_badane and his hike , we´re all rolling cause we thought you´d a real issue with Darwin´s theory rather than falling for the confetti at the christian right´s classic wedding with the Creationisim ,we put few question forward ,but then you faded on us

 

Anyhoo..

 

Originally posted by Bashi:

At issue is whether Darwinism can explain how man transitioned from chemical elements to bacteria-like organism to fish to mamamls then to its current form.

And that is exactly one of the Questions i coverd with my incoherent post where i went.

 

Darwin was aware of those difficulties that is why as pure natuaralist he presented that chapter and hoped for a brigher mind in future generations to shed ligh on it.

Blaming him that no one has YET shed the light on these difficulties is pure dogmatisim at it´s extreme.

 

The creationsits (these authors)seem to ignore the fact that science and scientists acknowledges human ignorance and treat it as a relative and natural phenomena.

 

The problem with the creationists is ( as it always been) instead of comming clean scientifically and proving their beleif beyond any reasonable doubt , they meterialize on the shortcommings of the other knowledges ,theories.

 

Originally posted by Bashi:

At issue also is whether Darwinism can furnish its emperical eveidence to support the assertion that biological creation (from start to finish) is done by mutation and selection forces alone and Super Being or God has nothing to do with this whole enterprise known as life. This is the essence of Darwin's theory.[/QOUTE]

 

We were exactly there when you joined us , we were talking about this VERY (start and finish )

 

Before you assume that there is a Start and finish , is the Question (IS there a start to it )a legitimate one?

And there is where i disagree with Socod_badane , becouse Determinisim just as Creationisim (but contrary)assumes that there can´t be a start and finish as every event, action |reaction generates new ones.

 

And there we are again, the possibility of Intelligent design that gives it start and the probability of Deterministic nature without start.

 

Bashi (My Garad).. Again i Ask ,since you´re a beleiver , mind sharing with us how eventual failure in Darwin´s theory might prove and favor your case as a creationist.without you coming clean scientifically by putting forward the TRUE BLUE base of your beleif?

 

it might help some !!

[xiinfaniin]

JB, where r u going with these 'incoherent' thoughts saaxiib? Never mind though as you backed up by Socod-badane’s and Castro’s blemish assertions I should expect more of that rubish-spewing of urs.

 

Dadku waa bahallo ilbaxay baad lasoo shirtag-teen. Not to mention that you are foolishly banging your head with the divine word (my be its divinity is in questions in your circles?)

 

Waa inoo berri!

[Caano Geel]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

JB,

Dadku waa bahallo ilbaxay baad lasoo shirtag-teen. Not to mention that you are foolishly banging your head with the divine word (my be its divinity is in questions in your circles?)

 

Waa inoo berri!

Dadku waa bahallo ilbaxay baad lasoo shirtag-teen. walaal, runtii waad iga qoslisay.

 

On the topic tho', the argument is not about the existance of divinity. There is a reason why its called evolution, NOT creation, as Jonny stated, the book was called the origin of species, NOT the origin of life.

 

These are very different questions. Evolution does not question creation, but states how change works. There is nothing to say that thought mechanism is automatic, the guiding process of evolution, i.e the nature is not itself guided.

 

And on this note, baashi, when u say:

"I believe evolution in the sense of organism evolving to best adopt their environment in order to survive" you are inadvert. agreeing with johny. and the hypothesis of evolution.

 

The scientific theory that explains creation is yet to be formulated ... as far as i know any way.

 

Johny, however taking up the anti -- the process of evolution base on random mutation alone can also be very brittle. If we take the only life we know, earth, evolution tells us the robustness and symetry of life we see is purely based on random mutation and preference selection.

 

So, robustness works in a limited sense. We see mass extinctions and things i.e. when a certain species is not able to adapt well/fast enough, but they are rare and rely too heavily on time and the peference mechanism (this doesnt inclume humans and their effects since social evolution is more powerfull that biological). which must be able to function fast enough before its window of opportunity fades. Clearly we see it works i.e. moths changing colour from white to grey to blend in the smog and avoid birds. But how the mechanism that triggers this fucntion and what it is encoded dont fully sit with evolution. Memetic theory partly deals with this but its still to be fully wedged in.

 

the symetry mechanism is also interesting. So given all the possible mutations and permutations that can be produced by a random selection process, guided by a local NOT global evalutation mechanims; why are there consistant solutions? such those for sound and image processing?

 

p.s. sorry i cant spell either

[Bakar]

JB said

 

I neither beleive in creationisim becouse it is based on the possibility of a supereme Intelligent Designer having designed it JUST so, nor do i beleive in Naturalisim just becouse it is based on the propability of life beeing a self-driven mechanism (coincidental actions and reactions if u like).

 

 

I see no constructive argument resulting from refutation of creationism. If you don’t mind my ignorance, do you care to shade light on the other doctrines (if there are) that the world can neither be understood in scientific nor creationism terms? Because it seems that you rejected both realms’ and their doctrine of world/universe.

[Mutakalim]

Salaamun Lakum Nomads,

 

I have read this thread thrice today as the title induced an unhealthy excitement in me, laakiin cid allale cid aan ujawaabo ayaan garan waayay. Spurred on by a desire to pretend to profundity, some have propounded, confusedly, adventerous assertions (from the speculative theories of modern physics to the metaphysics of reality). It seems that some Nomads are blameably indifferent as to discussing the actual arguments of both the Theory of evolution and the Argument from Design.

 

The theory of Evolution is, to labour the obvious, the single most discussed topic in all of natural philosophy or science. In this number, I must say that it is inappropriate to discuss this topic by penning glittering generalties. Empty statments such as " I think the theory of evolution is false, because there is evidence against it", or "I believe evolution to be a tenable scientific theory" are just that-empty. Argue dammit! I was ever of the opinion that the debate forum was free of the ghastly molestation which plagued other quarters of this site. Alas, I have found a disconfirming instance of my hypothesis.

 

It were to be wished then that someone furnish us with the cardinal argument of Charles Darwin. What is it that Natural selection explains that other theories of evolution failed to explain? Where do the terms mutation and chance fit in this soi-disant theory of science. What is it that the theory of evolution seeks to establish? How does Darwin dissolve some of the objections to his theory? So discussing, we can perhaps move to the teleology argument. Aquinas, a christian theologian and philosopher, penned a famous passage of the Argument of Design, but the Greeks, were the orginal authors of teleology. The ID argument is a metaphysical argument, and not a scientific one, but what does this mean? Is this where the philosophy of science comes in?

 

War iga jaahil bixaya, Dadoow!

 

Camuu Sabaaxan

 

With Salaams

PK

 

P.S. I thought it was necessary that someone play the role of the interloctor, as something whispers me, the discussion lacks focus. The discussion has yet to start.

[Baashi]

Caano Geel is right on the money when he adviced Khayr not to use Islamic litmus test on nomads who might have responded in a way contrary to their convictions. This is not a serious debate. It's a cyber discussion on what's essentially a difficult subject.

 

My boy JB, first accept my heartfelt appology (call me garaad again). On a secod look, it turns out that u were somewhat in the ring. However, sxb u r bouncing all over and it's kinda hard to bin ur argument down. I'm very short on time to post a coherent and well researched topic. I figure maybe some of you will fill in for me and cover all the angles of the argument.

 

Having said that, the general outlines of the discussion is clearly presented. For the sake of simplicity and general readership, I think it's prudent not to get the specifics of it or delve too mush into the academic side for this is posted for layman's consumption sort to speak.

 

Now again from where I stand, Darwin's theory has monumental implication on many fronts. It's no secret that its affect is felt on the social, economic, and political circles. As a scientific theory it has its shortcomings (fatal) especially on the fossil, genetics, and missing and unexplained "gabs".

 

I don't know how many are intimately familiar with Darwanism. For starters, Darwin's original treaties has gone through considerable modifications. Today Dawkins and Gould's new-Darwinism theory is what is taught in colleges. Nevertheless, the gabs that existed in fossil records are hard to explain away.

 

I'm an engineer by training and I think I know lil bit about scientific method. I have yet to see coherent explanation or empirical evidences that convinces me that Darwin and the neo-Darwinists know how man evolved from single organism. There are plenty of tales of how man might have originated based on extrapolation from the "creative" powers of the mutation and selection. Without leap of faith, there is no way one can demonstrate its validity using selective mechanism. You guys might have soft spot to uncritical acceptance in anything that bears "Scientific" label but I don't and so far my inquisitive hunger have not been quenched on this one.

 

The other contested issue is the metaphysical aspect of the theory and its adamant or rather active campaign to dismiss the existence of Super Being employing bilogical processes that give shape the living organism.

 

The undisputable fact is that an attempt has been made to explain how life might have originated. Darwin's version has gained a wide acceptance. In the spirit of skeptical inquiry, there are new questions challenging the faithfull followers of Darwin to furnish the empirical evidences to support their claims beyond the diversity of life and how it works and factors that come into play in its course.

 

Mutakalim,

Sxb adoo tookha yaraynaya, bal madax iyo minjo u yeel.

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Bakar:

I see no constructive argument resulting from refutation of creationism.

If you don’t mind my ignorance

, do you care to shade light on the other doctrines (if there are) that the world can neither be understood in scientific nor creationism terms? Because it seems that you rejected both realms’ and their doctrine of world/universe.

Bakar , i don´t know if i can shed a light or cause more confusion... but i can try

First , it is not like either one has to adopt scientific or creationistic doctorine to understand the world as you so willignly phrase it ,that would simplify the issue way too much.

Creationsits too has to apply and adopt scientific approach to understand the world,

just as the scientists and every other living human,animals, trees etc etc... that is equiped with some sort of intelligence.

As there can NEVER be other ways and means for human beeings and the rest of all beeings to understand.

don´t get confused .. science is nothing but observation, ,identification and description.

But to apply science and call a phenomena scientific one has to carry out experimental investigation, and bring forward theoretical explanation of the given phenomena.

( just like Darwin )

Now ..to get you onboard on my boat of ignorance

the third "doctorine" you´re looking for is called theUNKNOWN

, called so becouse it´s not scientifically discribeable | understandable YET.

 

Weird enough time and again creationists (usually blind beleivers)claim conformity to fact or truth (or victory if u like ) over naturalisim just becouse a phenomena is scientifically indescribable.meaning it is UNKNOWN yet.

I hope i shed some light

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

Dadku waa bahallo ilbaxay baad lasoo shirtag-teen. Not to mention that you are foolishly banging your head with the divine word (my be its divinity is in questions in your circles?)

Waa inoo berri!

Oooh mama.. Xiin is here .. everybody DUCK

p/s .ever since Mutakalim called me "feylasuf" i haven´t been the same, it went into my head , so you know who to blame ,

looking forward to your 'evolving' dadaistic inputs

 

Originally posted by Caano Geel:

And on this note, baashi, when u say:

"I believe evolution in the sense of organism evolving to best adopt their environment in order to survive" you are inadvert. agreeing with johny. and the hypothesis of evolution.

 

The scientific theory that explains creation is yet to be formulated

Caano Geel, There´re countless theories yet to be formulated including QUANTUM GRAVITY and till then they remain UNKNOWN and won´t support creationisim in any way.

 

p/s Easy on my (Garad) , maybe he´ll abandon evolution becouse of me

"BOI, am i as studly as the statue of Adam or what ?"-> by JB

 

Mutakalim , welcome to the confused thread Awoowe

a tiny advice though .. be everythiong but an interlocutor in this thread .

cause , even the side you may take will probably convert in order to avoid more casuality.

 

P/S.. The basic issue is phrased by Bashi, you may want to slightly rephrase it for the sake of robustness .

but then , now that he wrapped the whole thing as a layman's consumption sort of cake ,i don´t know if there is a point .

 

I knew it , i could tell it from the tinsels in his hair that he´d fallen for confetti at that Christian-right party.

 

.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Caano Geel:

peepz regradless of how much i agree or disagree with u, u do realised that evolution is completely agaisnt the creationist principles of islam, unless u can justify how Adam and Eve were mitochondrial dna ...

 

Yes, I'm aware the versions of human history offered by evolution and creation are incompatible. As a muslim, I have no problem with that becuz I don't compare the two. One is religious, the other science.

 

Science provides us explanations and mechanisms for what we observe in our world. It may contradict what Islam or other religions say on any particular topic. However, it doesn't contradict Allah in my opinion since everything we observe is directly the result of Allah's will. Nothing happens without Allah's will.

 

[

anyhow, out of curiosity who are biologists here, and how do you reconcile the two very different views, if it bothers u that is?

I'm biochemist, well almost. In couple of semesters.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by JustCause:

Socod_badne, I am a bit confused with the above statement of yours, could you clarify it further please?

 

Sure. The universe and everything that happens within it are guided by invarient set of natural laws. These are physical and non-physical laws that predetermine the possible outcome of many events. These events range from the paths of planetry motion to possible products of certain chemical reactions to the world of physics. For example, the laws of gravity predict that a ball thrown up in the air will fall back down. You will not see a ball lift its up from the ground and suspend itself in the air as this contradicts the laws of gravity. So these invarient natural laws rule out the possibility of there being chance in mention example. There is no chance in what will happened if you drop a ball suspended in the air. There are noted exceptions of course. Principally quantum mechanics world.

 

"The universe is built from quarks, leptons and so on. Since quantum mechanics applies to these particles, why shouldn’t quantum laws apply to the whole of the universe?"

 

That is at the elementary level and not the cosmic and non-subatomic world. The laws of quantum mechanics have effect at the very small scale -- at the electron, neutron, proton...level. That explains why the invariant natural laws don't apply to radio actively decaying molecules or quantum mechanics.

 

I will just say now and don’t have the time to expand on it, that we live in non-deterministic universe! Don’t be like Einstein and say, “God doesn’t play dice with the universe!â€.

We do live in non-deterministic AND deterministic world. You simply can not deny the plethora of empiracal evidence available for deterministic world. Einstien was partially right, God sometimes doesn't play dice with the universe. But on other instances like in the case radio actively decaying molecules, God does play dice with the universe. We often observe a radio active molecule decaying in some instances while in other instances under the same conditions, the same radio active molecule doesn't decay. God does play dice with universe in this instance.