Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
theist

The Intelligent Designer

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The Intelligent Designer

BY: GADADHARA DASA

 

 

Oct 8, USA (SUN) — Recently there has been a debate over whether God is the creator of the universe or that the creation is formed by combination of chemicals, a chance occurrence if you will. The scientific group who supports a "theory" called Intelligent Design (ID) says that there is an intelligence behind the creation. There must be intelligence behind something so complex and intricate which works so perfectly.

 

 

The anti-Intelligent Design scientific group argues that the (ID) group is pushing the old Creationist theology and that there is no science in something that requires faith.

 

 

They say there is no place in science for religion. "Creationism, intelligent design and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science," The National Academy of Sciences said in an assessment in 1999.

 

 

At a news conference, president Bush commented on whether or not ID should be taught in schools, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas. The answer is yes."

 

 

The origin of a thought?

 

 

Back in the 1920s Einstein came up with this theory called "The Theory of Relativity" and it started out like any scientific theory does. It was an idea, a thought. Then he did the research and then he did experiments and math equations and came to a conclusion. "The Theory of Relativity" would not have been a theory at all if it wasn't for Einstein. The idea, the thought, originated from him. We won't look at the details of the theory, just that this theory has an origin and that origin is Einstein.

 

 

This can be said of anything. Everything has an origin. Just like a automobile, someone wanted to create a certain type of automobile, so he thought about it, and then began to get people together to design it and after a while it was manufactured.

 

 

The origin of anything and everything is always traced to "someone." But who is that "Someone."?

 

 

It is stated in the Bhagavad-gita:

 

 

aham sarvasya prabhavo

mattah sarvam pravartate

iti matva bhajante mam

budha bhava-samanvitah

 

TRANSLATION

"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who know this perfectly engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts."

 

 

What Einstein used for his "Theory of Relativity" is generally called "modern science". There are many different kinds of sciences: the science of cooking, the science of painting, the science of astrology, the science of music. The purpose of these sciences is to know the subject better, to master the subject matter. The purpose of modern science, in this case, is to understand the universe and its workings.

 

 

The problem with "modern" science today is that the scientist has imperfect senses. How can they really prove anything? In the day time you can not see the stars in the sky, but at night you can see them. A small child who has never seen stars in the sky may argue in the day time, "there are no stars in the sky", but an older person with experience and knowledge will tell the child that you can only see them at night. Human eyes have imperfect vision.

 

 

In a room conversation with Srila Prabhupada in New Delhi, 12-11-71, he explains this nicely.

 

Prabhupada:

 

 

(bhakti-yogena manasi)

samyak pranihite ’male

apasyat purusam purnam

mayam ca tad-apasrayam

 

 

"The materialistic person, they have only one experience: this cosmic manifestation. Beyond this they have no other vision. Their senses are imperfect. Just like the astronomers, they have got big, big telescope, many other instruments. They want to see through the eyes how many stars are there, how the planets are moving, and whatever imperfect knowledge they receive, by that little knowledge they advertise themselves as great scientists. But they do not calculate that "We are trying to see the stars and planets with powerful binoculars. That means our eyes are imperfect."

 

 

And what is the guarantee that the instruments which they’re using, they are also perfect? Because that machine, that binocular, is also made by a person who is imperfect. So what is the guarantee that by seeing through binocular or microscope, the conclusion arrived, it is perfect? What is your answer? Your eyes are imperfect, that’s a fact. Otherwise, why you are using binocular, microscope? Eyes are imperfect. Originally your eyes are imperfect. Now, eyes or other senses, it does not matter. Sense is sense. So you are manufacturing a machine, some instrument, by the same imperfect senses, then what is the guarantee that this machine, this binocular, if you see through the binocular, the knowledge is perfect? What is your answer?

 

 

Devotee: Can’t be perfect.

 

 

Prabhupada: Answer? Any one other?

 

 

Devotee (2): Perfect knowledge cannot be received with imperfect senses. Only through perfect senses can perfect knowledge be received.

 

 

Prabhupada: Therefore it should be concluded that the so-called scientists, astronomers, they are all imperfect, and they are passing off the scientists as learned. So you can challenge them, "What is the guarantee that your knowledge is perfect?’’

 

 

Actually it is not. They do not know how the stars are moving. They are always imperfect. Simply putting some theories. They say all this, Darwin’s theory and this theory, that theory. They are simply speculating on imperfect senses, and therefore they’re cheating, because the conditioned soul has got a tendency to cheat others. If one can cheat others, he thinks himself as very intelligent.

 

 

The conditioned souls, they commit mistake, they are illusioned, they cheat, and their senses are imperfect. This is the, the four condition. Therefore, if we receive knowledge from the conditioned soul, there is no possibility of getting perfect knowledge. If by nature you are cheater, then how I can expect fair dealings? It is to be understood that we cannot have any fair dealings with this conditioned soul. And he’ll protest.

 

 

The whole world is full of conditioned living entities. They’re conditioned. Conditioned means under the control of the material nature. Gunaih karmani. There are different types of conditioned souls. Some of them are good conditioned soul, some of them are passionate conditioned soul, some of them are rascal conditioned soul. So good conditioned soul means that, er, "(indistinct) that I have become very much learned, I have studied so many books, so now I am perfect.’’ There is little goodness, because he has studied, he, he has labored, but still he’s conditioned soul, because he has no perfect vision. Vimukta-maninah.

 

 

A Morning Walk With Srila Prabhupada on 12-03-73

 

 

Dr. Singh: The scientists argue that before Darwin’s biophysical type of evolution could take place, there had to be what they call prebiotic chemistry, or chemical evolution.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada: Yes. And the term "chemical evolution" means that chemicals have an origin, and that origin is spirit, or life. A lemon produces citric acid, and our bodies produce many chemicals in urine, blood, and bodily secretions. This is proof that life produces chemicals, not that chemicals produce life.

 

 

Dr. Singh: Scientists say that once the seed of life is present in the cells, then the living entity automatically develops and functions.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada: Yes, but who gives the seed? In the Bhagavad-gita (7.10) Krsna answers this question. Bijam mam sarva-bhutanam viddhi partha sanatanam: "O son of Prtha, know that I am the original seed of all existences." And later (14.4):

 

 

sarva-yonisu kaunteya

murtayah sambhavanti yah

tasam brahma mahad yonir

aham bija-pradah pita

 

 

"It should be understood that all species of life, O son of Kunti, are made possible by birth in this material nature, and that I am the seed-giving father." Giving Credit to the Primal Creator.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Forgive me for saying so, but this sort of science-bashing is a little dangerous. For example, someone who is not positioned in KC yet can read this article and be completely unattracted to anything Vedic thereafter, arguing that such denial of scientific know-how is blind. From a KC point of view it is understandable, but from a non-KC view it is more like an anti-scientific rant. The gap, i feel, is beginning to widen between the atheistic (POTENTIALLY Krsna-conscious community) and the current spiritual community. That, i think, is sad.

 

G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you find bashing G? The limitations of the atheistic theories must be pointed out or everyone will remain a "potential devotee" forever.

 

Intelligent design must be a begininng posititon in Krsna consciousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Famous Atheist Now Believes in GodOne of World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence

The Associated Press

 

NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 — A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

 

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

 

Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives.

 

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."

 

 

Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and Falsification," based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis.

 

Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates.

 

There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.

 

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

 

The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese's Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of Scotland's University of St. Andrews.

 

The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.

 

The letter commended arguments in Schroeder's "The Hidden Face of God" and "The Wonder of the World" by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic layman.

 

This week, Flew finished writing the first formal account of his new outlook for the introduction to a new edition of his "God and Philosophy," scheduled for release next year by Prometheus Press.

 

Prometheus specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets people, well "that's too bad," Flew said. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

 

Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the atheistic www.infidels.org Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife.

 

Flew's "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up," Carrier said. Still, when it comes to Flew's reversal, "apart from curiosity, I don't think it's like a big deal."

 

Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.

 

A Methodist minister's son, Flew became an atheist at 15.

 

Early in his career, he argued that no conceivable events could constitute proof against God for believers, so skeptics were right to wonder whether the concept of God meant anything at all.

 

Another landmark was his 1984 "The Presumption of Atheism," playing off the presumption of innocence in criminal law. Flew said the debate over God must begin by presuming atheism, putting the burden of proof on those arguing that God exists.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

 

 

Devotee (2): Perfect knowledge cannot be received with imperfect senses. Only through perfect senses can perfect knowledge be received.

 

 

Prabhupada: Therefore it should be concluded that the so-called scientists, astronomers, they are all imperfect, and they are passing off the scientists as learned. So you can challenge them, "What is the guarantee that your knowledge is perfect?’’

 

 

 

Per this kind of logic, no one should accept anything.

 

The novice should not to KC as he - due to his imperfect nature - is incapable of making the right decision about his welfare. If the novice should not accept the scientist's statement for the above reasons, then for the same reasons, neither should he accept the preachings of a religion person!

 

Also, I fail to understand the logic (due to my imperfect nature?) behind "Eyes are imperfect, that is why you use binoculars". By similar logic, ears are imperfect, which is why we use speakers. In a perfect world, there would be no speakers and everyone can hear all sounds at all times regardless of distance. Incomprehensible, but interesting...

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is like someone whose sight is severly limited to only three feet in front of them. Through some therapy they learn to see four feet in front of them. Now they have a little bit more knowledge of what is before than they had previously but what is that when compared to the expanse of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Theist

 

I finally got myself a login name instead of signing all my posts "G"... other guests are posting and multiple guests can cause confusion.

 

 

The limitations of the atheistic theories must be pointed out or everyone will remain a "potential devotee" forever. Intelligent design must be a begininng posititon in Krsna consciousness.

 

 

 

I agree. But method is very important.

 

 

Where do you find bashing G?

 

 

 

Perhaps i should first define what i mean by bashing though - anything that attempts negate the science and scientific methods by using logic/language that is totally ok by a KC stand-point (and therefore is true) but from an atheistic point of view sounds like what is really is, ie religious (exactly what they are not attracted to). I don't mean any disrespect here by the way - It's just that i've come across this alot, coming from a scientific background to a spiritual "awakening" (tho it actully hasn't quite happened yet!!). Trying to prove scientists wrong by spiritual tactics, e.g. scripture, is like an englishman trying to explain the intracacies of quantum mechanics to a japanese pauper - the spiritualist will rarely get through to a spiritual pauper unless they start talking the same language.

 

So, with that defined, here's what i find a little bashing:

 

 

The problem with "modern" science today is that the scientist has imperfect senses. How can they really prove anything? In the day time you can not see the stars in the sky, but at night you can see them. A small child who has never seen stars in the sky may argue in the day time, "there are no stars in the sky", but an older person with experience and knowledge will tell the child that you can only see them at night. Human eyes have imperfect vision.

 

And what is the guarantee that the instruments which they’re using, they are also perfect?

 

Therefore it should be concluded that the so-called scientists, astronomers, they are all imperfect, and they are passing off the scientists as learned. So you can challenge them, "What is the guarantee that your knowledge is perfect?

 

...conditioned soul...

 

 

 

I don't know if i've explained myself properly here, but i just get the feeling that if religion is to reach out to the scientific masses then the spritualists must bring themselves down to a language that is understood by scientists - and then upliftment can begin. Talking from a higher platform will just push scientists away because (1) they have huge egos and (2) they care little for God and God-like things (even if you are talking from a truthful standpoint).

 

Do you feel this way also?

 

G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to have a name to put to your posts. yes it is a lot easier for conversation.

 

Intelligent design is exactly what you are asking for. It is pointing to God within their own discipline.

 

What I hear Prabhupada saying in his works is that he is challenging these so-called scientists who declare that science proves there is no God. Actually science proves there is God.

 

A funny but good example is one of the first, if not the first, Russian cosmonaut who went into space(Yuri Gorin?) was asked if he saw God when he went into space, he said no therefore some seized upon that as proof there is no God. LOL

 

An honest scientist will admit his limitations but so many of them are ego driven and think they have disproved God and are misleading the world. These pompus asses we must challenge.

 

Atheist are ego maniac fools. Agnostics are honest. It is their consclusions that really are to be challenged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Krishna-kanti: The doctors are marveling at the complex nature of the human brain. They are amazed.

 

Prabhupada: Yes. Yes. But they are rascal. It is not the brain that is working. It is the spirit soul that is working. The same thing: the computer machine. The rascal will think that a computer machine is working. No. The man is working. He pushes the button, then it works. Otherwise, what is the value of this machine? You keep the machine for thousands of years, it will not work. When another man will come, put the button, then it will work. So who is working? The machine is working or the man is working? And the man is also another machine. And it is working due to the presence of Paramatma, God. Therefore, ultimately, God is working. A dead man cannot work. So how long a man remains living? So long the Paramatma is there, atma is there. Even the atma is there, if Paramatma does not give him intelligence, he cannot work. Mattah smritir jnanam apohanam ca [bg. 15.15]. God is giving me intelligence, "You put this button." Then I put this button. So ultimately Krishna is working. Another, untrained man cannot come and work on it because there is no intelligence. And a particular man who is trained up, he can work. So these things are going on. Ultimately comes to Krishna. What you are researching, what you are talking, that is also Krishna is doing. Krishna is giving you in... You, you prayed for this facility to Krishna. Krishna is giving you. Sometimes you find accidentally the experiment is successful. So when Krishna sees that you are so much harassed in experimental, "All right do it." Just like Yasoda Ma was trying to tie Krishna, but she could not do. But when Krishna agreed, it was possible. Similarly, this accident means Krishna helps you: "All right, you have worked so hard, take this result." Everything is Krishna. Mattah smritir jnanam apohanam ca [bg. 15.15]. Everything is coming from Krishna.

 

Svarupa Damodara: They say, "Krishna didn't give me the proper steps how to do the experiments."

 

Prabhupada: Yes, he gives you. Otherwise how you are doing it. Whatever you are doing, that is by Krishna's grace. And when you are still favorable, then Krishna will give you more facilities. Krishna will give you facility, will favor you, as much as you desire, not more than that. Ye yatha mam prapadyante tams tathaiva... As much proportionately you surrender to Krishna, the intelligence will come. If you fully surrender, then full intelligence will come. It is stated in the Bhagavad-gita. Ye yatha mam prapadyante tams tathaiva bhajamy aham [bg. 4.11]. Wet? (Asking about the ground)

 

Svarupa Damodara: No. Little wet, but not much.

 

Prabhupada: Krishna says, "You fully surrender. I give you full protection." Aham tvam sarva-papebhyo mokshayishyami [bg. 18.66]. He will give you full intelligence. [break] <...these facts in Krishna consciousness. That will be our great success when the scientific world will admit. Let them admit simply. Then our Krishna consciousness movement will (be) great success. You simply admit, "Yes, there is God and mystic power." Then our movement is very successful. And that's a fact. Simply talking like a nonsense amongst the nonsense, that is not a very great credit. Andha yathandhair upaniyamanah [sB 7.5.31]. One blind man is leading other blind man. What is the value of such? They are all blind. And so long one remains blind and rascal, he does not accept God. This is the test. As soon as we see that he does not accept God, he is blind, rascal, fool, whatever you can call. Take it for granted, however, whatever he may be. He's a rascal. On this principle we can challenge so many big, big chemist, philosopher, whoever comes to us. We say, "You are demon." The other chemist came, you brought him, that Indian?

 

Svarupa Damodara: Hm. Chouri.(?)

 

Prabhupada: Chouri. (laughing) So I told him that "You are a demon." But he was not angry. He admitted. And all his argument was refuted. Perhaps you remember.

 

Svarupa Damodara: Yes, in fact, he was telling that "Krishna didn't give me all the procedures, steps, how to do the experiment." He was saying like that.

 

Prabhupada: Yes. Why shall I give you? You are a rascal, you are against Krishna, why Krishna will give you facility? If you are against Krishna and you want the credit without Krishna, that's not possible. You must be submissive first of all. Then Krishna will give you all facilities. Just like we dare to face any chemist, any scientist, any philosopher. Why? On the strength of Krishna, we believe that "There is Krishna. When I shall talk with him, Krishna will give give me intelligence." This is the basics. Otherwise, from qualification, standard, they are very much qualified. We are common laymen before them. But how do we challenge them? Because we know. Just like a small child He can challenge a very big man because he knows, "My father is there." He is catching the hand of the father, and he's sure that "Nobody can do anything to me."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...these facts in Krishna consciousness. That will be our great success when the scientific world will admit. Let them admit simply. Then our Krishna consciousness movement will (be) great success. You simply admit, "Yes, there is God and mystic power." Then our movement is very successful.

 

 

And this is exactly the point of Intelligent Design. To see and acknowledge Krishna (God) is the Cause of All Causes and that everything is running on His mystic potency.

 

Devotees are positioned in a place to lead the Intelligent Design movement. Krsna is the intelligence of the intelligent. He is the Intelligence in intelligent design and He is the intelligence in His devotee who intelligently explains Intelligent Design to others.

 

On this point theists of varying faiths should join together and cooperate in challenging the atheistic scientists that have infected our public educational system and are slaughtering the minds of the helpless young students put before them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

n honest scientist will admit his limitations but so many of them are ego driven...

 

 

That's exactly it - an ego that tells you you know everything... If you were red specs, everything in the world looks red. if you were yellow specs, everything in the world looks yellow. In the same way, scientists don't want to see God and only the material manifestation therefore that's what they see with their so-called "objective" mind.

 

Your example of Yuri Gorin is apt - anything and everything that backs up their own theory and belief is made "bigger". The same goes for evidence against theory - i see it all the time, e.g. evidence that goes against human evolution is neatly put away but anything that corroborates their version of events is publicised. This is the history of science. And it's happening right now more than before.

 

Theist, my original post was the way we approach these people (i.e. the words we use, as well as the subject) - i fear "intelligent design", tho within their own discipline, has now a stigma attached to it and so it's difficult to get a serious discussion with these guys about it. It's so hard to get these people to listen! Even while i'l typing it;s frustrating me!!!

 

OK, calm down.... breath /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is often frustrating. And it is not just the scientists themselves. Currently I am engaged with a small group of people on another forum over the issue of school choice. I proposed breaking up the present school system monopoly in favor of a diversity of schools where theists of different types could have their chosen type of education and atheists their's instaead of constant court battles over ID and various creation stories always clashing with impersonal random selection.

 

I can't even get these leftist nazi's to agree to that in principle. The big scientists have corner the market in people's mind's that only their brand of "truth"is valid. Their's also has all the earmarks of a religious cult with them as the high priests just no conception of God.

 

Some are just to arrogant and bullheaded to spend time on but there are others.

 

War is frustrating and this is war. Of course we must pick our battles wisely and in a way that our point of God and His mystic power will be most successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

from Limits for the Universe by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. in Astronomy

 

 

1 Gravitational coupling constant If larger: No stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar life spans

If smaller: No stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production

 

2 Strong nuclear force coupling constant If larger: No hydrogen; nuclei essential for life are unstable

If smaller: No elements other than hydrogen

 

3 Weak nuclear force coupling constant If larger: All hydrogen is converted to helium in the big bang, hence too much heavy elements

If smaller: No helium produced from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements

 

4 Electromagnetic coupling constant If larger: No chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron are unstable to fission

If smaller: No chemical bonding

5 Ratio of protons to electrons formation If larger: Electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

If smaller: Electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

6 Ratio of electron to proton mass If larger: No chemical bonding

If smaller: No chemical bonding

7 Expansion rate of the universe If larger: No galaxy formation

If smaller: Universe collapses prior to star formation

8 Entropy level of universe If larger: No star condensation within the proto-galaxies

If smaller: No proto-galaxy formation

9 Mass density of the universe If larger: Too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly

If smaller: No helium from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements

10 Age of the universe If older: No solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy

If younger: Solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed

11 Initial uniformity of radiation If smoother: Stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed

If coarser: Universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space

12 Average distance between stars If larger: Heavy element density too thin for rocky planet production

If smaller: Planetary orbits become destabilized

13 Solar luminosity If increases too soon: Runaway green house effect

If increases too late: Frozen oceans

14 Fine structure constant* If larger: No stars more than 0.7 solar masses

If smaller: No stars less then 1.8 solar masses

15 Decay rate of the proton If greater: Life would be exterminated by the release of radiation

If smaller: Insufficient matter in the universe for life

16 12C to 16O energy level ratio If larger: Insufficient oxygen

If smaller: Insufficient carbon

17 Decay rate of 8Be If slower: Heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars

If faster: No element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible

18 Mass difference between the neutron and the proton If greater: Protons would decay before stable nuclei could form

If smaller: Protons would decay before stable nuclei could form

19 Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons If greater: Too much radiation for planets to form

If smaller: Not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form

20 Galaxy type If too elliptical: Star formation ceases before sufficient heavy element buildup for life chemistry

If too irregular: Radiation exposure on occasion is too severe and/or heavy elements for life chemistry are not available

21 Parent star distance from center of galaxy If farther: Quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets

If closer: Stellar density and radiation would be too great

22 Number of stars in the planetary system If more than one: Tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits

If less than one: Heat produced would be insufficient for life

23 Parent star birth date If more recent: Star would not yet have reached stable burning phase

If less recent: Stellar system would not yet contain enough heavy elements

24 Parent star mass If greater: Luminosity would change too fast; star would burn too rapidly

If less: Range of distances appropriate for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the rotational period for a planet of the right distance; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen

25 Parent star age If older: Luminosity of star would change too quickly

If younger: Luminosity of star would change too quickly

26 Parent star color If redder: Photosynthetic response would be insufficient

If bluer: Photosynthetic response would be insufficient

27 Supernovae eruptions If too close: Life on the planet would be exterminated

If too far: Not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets

If too infrequent: Not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets

If too frequent: Life on the planet would be exterminated

28 White dwarf binaries If too few: Insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed

If too many: Disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated

29 Surface gravity (escape velocity) If stronger: Atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane

If weaker: Planet's atmosphere would lose too much water

30 Distance from parent star If farther: Planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle

If closer: Planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle

31 Inclination of orbit If too great: Temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme

32 Orbital eccentricity If too great: Seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme

33 Axial tilt If greater: Surface temperature differences would be too great

If less: Surface temperature differences would be too great

34 Rotation period If longer: Diurnal temperature differences would be too great

If shorter: Atmospheric wind velocities would be too great

35 Gravitational interaction with a moon If greater: Tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe

If less: Orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities

36 Magnetic field If stronger: Electromagnetic storms would be too severe

If weaker: Inadequate protection from hard stellar radiation

37 Thickness of crust If thicker: Too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust

If thinner: Volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great

38 Albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface) If greater: Runaway ice age would develop

If less: Runaway green house effect would develop

39 Oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere If larger: Advanced life functions would proceed too quickly

If smaller: Advanced life functions would proceed too slowly

40 Carbon dioxide level in atmosphere If greater: Runaway greenhouse effect would develop

If less: Plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis

41 Water vapor level in atmosphere If greater: Runaway greenhouse effect would develop

If less: Rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land

42 Ozone level in atmosphere If greater: Surface temperatures would be too low

If less Surface temperatures would be too high; there would be too much uv radiation at the surface

43 Atmospheric electric discharge rate If greater: Too much fire destruction would occur

If less: Too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere

44 Oxygen quantity in atmosphere If greater: Plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily

If less: Advanced animals would have too little to breathe

45 Oceans to continents ratio If greater: Diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited

If smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited

46 Soil materializations If too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited

If too nutrient rich: Diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited

47 Seismic activity If greater: Too many life-forms would be destroyed

If less: Nutrients on ocean floors (from river runoff) would not be recycled to the continents through tectonic uplift

*(A function of three other fundamental constants, Planck's constant, the velocity of light, and the electron charge each of which, therefore, must be fine-tuned)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the types of arguments that will get their attention and by persuasive. Not the "We didn't go to the moon," or the Rahu demon's head is eating the moon and sun at the time of the eclipse stuff.

 

I can't understand the arguments above because I don't understand science speak but many others do. I hope more devotees pick up on this track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the types of arguments that will get their attention and be persuasive. Not the "We didn't go to the moon," or the Rahu demon's head is eating the moon and sun at the time of the eclipse stuff.

 

I can't understand the arguments above because I don't understand science speak but many others do. I hope more devotees pick up on this track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Just chiming in here. Without politics, because the politician has no scruples, no cares for anything other than power held over others, and anything or any philosophy they embrace is only to achieve this end. "Intelligent Design" is not a belief of the US president, it is a ploy created by his handlers, rove and wolfowitz (wulfshanzhe), to get the idiots to vote for his kind. ID is not a belief of Christians either, because they think the creator died at the hands of the Romans, is anxious and competitive with some alien being they call Satan. Christians actually are rejected by Lord Jesus Christ because although they use his name to stamp on all their ideas, they fail to do the will of their Father. I feel very bad for the Vaisnava who tries to befriend these rascals because they will be the first to be burned at their stakes for believing in a Real Personality of Godhead, Lord Krsna, the All-Attractive.

 

ID is best explained by the fact that in nature, there is no energy expended without an energetic source. The bullet flies, but the one who pulls the trigger is necessary. (A joke came to mind, "guns dont kill people, bullets do")

 

So, we can have the big bang, evolution, all this stuff, because there is ample evidence. (Micro, not macro, evolution is in tiny spurts, adaptation to environment, mutation, etc., this is the probative evolution, not this "out popped an arm" idea, macro evolution, that has no scientific evidence whatsoever.) But science also means going as deep into the issue as one can, and the big bang has a shooter, evolution has an energetic source who manipulates, etc.

 

On another subject, although I dont accept the late Afrikan swami, I reject the criticism seen on that topic. Some want gurus to be quote machines, but real gurus have individualistic personalities, and can speak authoritively on plate techtonics which prove Africa was the origin of the species, Alien beings, etc. Srila Prabhupada had such a wonderful individualistic personality as well, and his disciples cherish his views on politics, space programs, etc. I have a siksa guru who is very right wing politically, and his school actually supports some republicans, and I reject this ideology vehemently, but this is not to say my siksa guru is bogus, that I have lost my faith in him. Quite the contrary, he is the source of any krsna consciousness I may have, and we differ on some minor points pertaining to worldly issues, but the guru-disciple relationship remains intact. Just had to spout that here, as I have not been doing the internet lately. Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TRANSLATION

 

My Lord, You are the observer of all the objectives of the senses. Without Your mercy, there is no possibility of solving the problem of doubts. The material world is just like a shadow resembling You. Indeed, one accepts this material world as real because it gives a glimpse of Your existence.

 

PURPORT

 

To paraphrase this verse: "The objectives of sensual activities are actually observed by You. Without Your direction, the living entity cannot take even a step forward. As confirmed in Bhagavad-gita (15.15), sarvasya caham hridi sannivishto mattah smritir jnanam apohanam ca. You are situated in everyone's heart, and only from You come remembrance and forgetfulness. Chayeva yasya bhuvanani bibharti durga [bs. 5.44]. The living entity under the clutches of maya wants to enjoy this material world, but unless You give him directions and remind him, he cannot make progress in pursuing his shadowy objective in life. The conditioned soul wrongly progresses toward the wrong objective, life after life, and he is reminded of that objective by You. In one life the conditioned soul desires to progress toward a certain objective, but after his body changes, he forgets everything. Nonetheless, my Lord, because he wanted to enjoy something of this world, You remind him of this in his next birth. Mattah smritir jnanam apohanam ca [bg. 15.15]. Because the conditioned soul wants to forget You, by Your grace You give him opportunities, life after life, by which he can almost perpetually forget You. Therefore You are eternally the director of the conditioned souls. It is because You are the original cause of everything that everything appears real. The ultimate reality is Your Lordship, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. I offer my respectful obeisances unto You."

 

The word sarva-pratyaya-hetave is explained by Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, who says that a result gives one a glimpse of its cause. For example, since an earthen pot is the result of the actions of a potter, by seeing the earthen pot one can guess at the existence of the potter. Similarly, this material world resembles the spiritual world, and any intelligent person can guess how it is acting. As explained in Bhagavad-gita, mayadhyakshena prakritih suyate sa-caracaram [bg. 9.10]. The activities of the material world suggest that behind them is the superintendence of the Lord.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

There is also another philosophic movement that has started up recently, called the Unintelligent Design movement.

 

See information here:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Unintelligent_Design

 

See also the articles about "Bird Flu: Evolution or Unintelligent Design"

 

Why on earth would any god use a haphazard process such as a bird flu pandemic to regulate the population of living beings on earth?

 

A more sensible approach would be that the god just sends down lightning to hit the bad guys (Saddam, etc) and sends down a heavy rain of oil onto the heads of the good guys (George W. Bush and Tony Blair, etc). Since the heavenly god is using unintelligent methods to manage life on earth, surely he is an unintelligent designer. This is the philosophy of Unintelligent Design.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On second thoughts, it seems to me that a really intelligent designer wouldn't send oil raining down on George Bush, it would just send gasoline pouring straight from heaven into the gas tank of my car. Now that would be a really Intelligent Design!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Daily there are 5-10 articles including letters to the editor being written about Intelligent Design. Mostly people write against it but polls show that majority of people is USA do not believe in Darwinism.

 

Here is a nice article giving a synopsis of the whole controversy. There is actually a VERY IMPORTANT court case going on as to what should be taught in the public schools in USA.

 

Evolution of intelligent design

 

By Lisa Anderson Tribune national correspondent Sun Oct 30, 9:40 AM ET

 

Fictional presidential candidate Matt Santos on NBC’s “The West Wing” recently discussed it, as did real-life President George Bush in the White House, not to mention “The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart, more than three dozen Nobel laureates and numerous school boards across the country.

 

 

A decade ago most Americans had never heard of intelligent design, or ID. But, in the last year, the term has surfaced repeatedly in politics, media and education as the rallying point for religious conservatives in the culture war over the teaching of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

 

Although polls show about half of Americans still don’t recognize the expression, the background and meaning of ID are focal points of a landmark

1st Amendment case unfolding here in Pennsylvania’s capital.

 

A very old phrase that gained new currency about a decade ago, ID presents itself as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. It posits that some aspects of the natural world that are not yet explained by Darwin suggest design by an unnamed intelligent agent.

 

The prime engine propelling the dissemination of ID is the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank whose $4 million budget is heavily funded by conservative Christian donors. Discovery’s Center for Science & Culture, which used to be the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, laid out its goals in a 1999 fundraising document called “The Wedge Strategy.”

 

Determined to drive a “wedge” into the tree trunk of “scientific materialism,” it said, “Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”

 

John West, associate director of the Center for Science & Culture, pointed out that the wedge proposal was a plan, not a scholarly document.

 

“That document was about more than intelligent design. It was about the larger cultural context and the anti-religious agenda of some people in the name of science,” he said.

 

Indeed, the document went beyond the scientific debate, extending the argument into the world of politics. It equated Darwin with Karl Marx and others whom it described as viewing humans not as “spiritual beings but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry and environment.”

 

This materialistic conception “eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art,” the document said.

 

The Center for Science & Culture’s five-year plan, much of which already has been achieved, called for funding research fellows at major universities, publishing numerous articles and books on ID, generating significant media coverage and getting 10 states to include ID in science curricula.

 

Discovery says it doesn’t want schools to mandate the teaching of ID, but to “teach the controversy.”

 

Most scientists say there is no controversy.

 

Pennsylvania is the first state to see ID included in a school district’s curriculum, but Ohio and Minnesota and at least one district in New Mexico include critical analysis of evolution in their science standards. Kansas is expected to do so this fall. More than 24 state and local authorities have considered similar changes to their science curricula over the last year, according to the National Center for Science Education, a California-based non-profit group dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution in public schools.

 

A week ago, intelligent design made its European debut in Prague, Czech Republic, at an international scientific conference drawing some 700 people from Europe, Africa and the U.S., according to The Associated Press. Many who spoke at “Darwin and Design: A Challenge for 21st Century Science” were from the Discovery Institute, including Stephen Meyer, the Cambridge University-educated director of the Center for Science & Culture.

 

Of the Discovery Institute’s strategy, Jerry Coyne, a professor in the ecology and evolution department at the University of Chicago, said, “They’re smart people, in general, with respectable academic positions and degrees. . . . It’s their media savvy, combined with their money. And they have learned a lot of lessons from the old creationists, that is to be much less evangelical.”

 

Critics call theory `Neo-Creo’

 

Because ID makes no mention of the Bible or the divine, some critics call it “Neo-Creo,” that is, a new version of creationism’s adherence to the Genesis account of creation.

 

They view its secular language as a tactic to skirt the Supreme Court’s 1987 decision finding creationism a religious belief and banning it from public school classrooms as a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.

 

Proponents of ID particularly criticize the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection, by which all life, including humans, evolved from a common ancestor over some 4billion years, according to Darwin’s theory, which most scientists laud as the cornerstone of modern biology.

 

Every major U.S. scientific organization and the aforementioned group of Nobelists dismiss ID and say there is no credible controversy over evolution. They consider ID a new bottle with a high-tech label for the old wine of natural theology, creationism and scientific creationism, serial concepts based to some degree on the biblical account of creation.

 

ID is “creationism in a cheap tuxedo,” according to Leonard Krishtalka, director of the Kansas Museum and Biodiversity Research Center at the University of Kansas in Lawrence.

 

Not so, said William Dembski, a Discovery fellow and leading ID proponent, who directs the Center for Science and Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville.

 

“Creationism was consciously trying to model the science on a certain interpretation of Genesis. You don’t have anything like that in intelligent design,” said Dembski, who holds doctorates in mathematics from the University of Chicago and in philosophy from the University of Illinois and a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary.

 

`Watchmaker’ argument

 

Long before evolution, creationism or ID, there was natural theology, a popular concept based on reason and observation rather than Scripture.

 

In his 1802 book “Natural Theology,” British theologian and philosopher William Paley made his famous “watchmaker” argument. Paley said that if one stumbled across a watch, one rationally would conclude it was designed. So, too, he said, one can look at aspects of nature and infer that they had a designer and that the designer is God.

 

But after Darwin’s 1859 publication of “On the Origin of Species,” Dembski said, “The sense that you needed a watchmaker disappeared. The watch could put itself together.”

 

More than a century later, Richard Dawkins, Oxford University’s Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, played on Paley’s analogy to champion evolution in his 1986 book, “The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design.”

 

After Darwin’s publication, the term “creationism” arose in opposition to the popularity of so-called Darwinism. It asserted the biblical account of creation. But creationism suffered damaging ridicule after Tennessee’s Scopes “Monkey Trial” in 1925.

 

Eventually, it morphed into “scientific creationism.” Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, advanced the concept. It makes scientific claims for the six-day creation account in Genesis, an Earth age of less than 10,000 years, the simultaneous creation of all things, Noah’s global flood and the non-evolutionary creation of humans.

 

Scientific creationism points to gaps in the fossil record, geological evidence of the effects of global flood and examples in nature that give the appearance of design, such as the human eye, as refutation of evolution. It has many supporters: In a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, 53 percent of adults surveyed said “God created humans in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it.” And polls consistently show a majority of Americans favor teaching both evolution and creationism.

 

But after the Supreme Court ruling in 1987, creationism couldn’t be taught in public schools.

 

And it was around that time that the current ID movement began to emerge. It uses a term attributed to British philosopher Ferdinand C.S. Schiller. In his 1903 book “Humanism,” he wrote, “It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design.”

 

Whether ID is a scientific theory or a religious belief is at the heart of the 1st Amendment case Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District in central Pennsylvania, the apparent inspiration for “The West Wing” script earlier this month.

 

Parents of Dover students sued the district and school board over a requirement that 9th-grade biology students be informed of ID as a scientific alternative to evolution. The parents, who claim that ID is creationism in disguise, contend that such a requirement is religiously motivated, thus violating the constitutional separation of church and state and the Supreme Court’s ban on creationism in public schools.

 

Attorneys for the school district argue ID is not a religious belief but a valid scientific theory and that the school district intended only to expose students to views critical of and differing from evolution. The case, in its sixth week, may influence how biology is taught in public schools around the country.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to the radio this morning I heard our ex-president Jimmy Carter give an interview. He is out peddling his new book.

 

He stated that he was a reborn evangelical Christian. The Intelligent Design came up. He blames those promoting ID as the cause of the discord in public schools between those teaching science which doesn't speak of God and those that want to acknowledge the Lord as the Creator of all that be.

 

He mention that on one hand he believed in God but on the other he was trained as a nuclear scientist and he insists religion has no place in science.

 

This is the position of the fool. And this man was president. Leader of hundreds of millions.

 

This position seems impossible for me to imagine. If you accept God as being behind the creation how can you possibly divorce Him from the actions of creation?

 

We casn notice that Srila Prabhupada often spoke of the science of Krishna consciousness. Krishna consciousness is not just some sentimental state of mind that old ladies experience on Sunday morning or before bingo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×