Intelligent Design in Schools

[Phi for All]

I wasn't trying to say that Gary Zukav supports intelligent design I was just giving an example of how science has found similarities with religion before and suggesting that it could' date=' note I say COULD, happen in the future.

Needless to say there is a good chance it won't, but you can never be sure.[/quote']You need, really need, to understand this. Science doesn't say God doesn't exist. Science doesn't say God isn't the creator. Science doesn't say God isn't ultimately behind all the forces and physical laws and processes that exist in the observable universe. Science remains skeptical even about it's most widely held theories, because new theories come along to shed light on old theories. Theories *are* theories and not fact so they can continue to grow and be built upon.

 

But God, by definition, remains unobservable, so science really can't even speculate on Him. The precepts of most religions are built on miraculous phenomena which science can't test because they aren't repeatable. And since most religions would never admit they could be wrong, any evidence they present isn't falsifiable so it can't be predicted or tested via the scientific method.

 

Science remains skeptical of religious explanations while neither completely accepting or completely denying them. If God insists on staying hidden and waving the wand of omnipotence then science really has nothing to say about Him.

 

That said, you can now clearly see that ID is NOT science, since it is attempting to prey on weak educations, arguable logic and complete fallacies to combine true science and religious agendas. ID is not science and should not be taught in schools alongside science.

[Dr. Dalek]

You need' date=' really need, to understand this. Science doesn't say God doesn't exist. Science doesn't say God isn't the creator. Science doesn't say God isn't ultimately behind all the forces and physical laws and processes that exist in the observable universe. Science remains skeptical even about it's most widely held theories, because new theories come along to shed light on old theories. Theories *are* theories and not fact so they can continue to grow and be built upon.

 

But God, by definition, remains unobservable, so science really can't even speculate on Him.[/quote']

 

The Merriam Webster Dictionary definition:

God: 1 The supreme reality: esp the Being worshiped as the creator and ruler of the universe.

2 A being or object and to require worship and is believed to have supernatural attributes and powers

3 A person or thing of supreme value.

I see nothing about God being unobservable.

Also God is only "believed to have supernatural attributes and powers " God does not definitely have supernatural attributes and powers.

Furthermore God may turn out to be something far different than Christ, or Alla, you don't know if God even has a name, or is a person.

If you believe some people God is a subtle force, possibly a physical phenomenon that has no attributes of anything like a personality. Perhaps God is more like the Force in Star Wars, a willful force like the Greek and Roman Rota, or Fate, a Force that acts willfully.

Your definition of God is too narrow.

 

That said, you can now clearly see that ID is NOT science, since it is attempting to prey on weak educations, arguable logic and complete fallacies to combine true science and religious agendas. ID is not science and should not be taught in schools alongside science. .

If you more carefully read what I had written earlier you will find that I did come to the conclusion through some review that ID, because it is not yet refutable, or otherwise provable it should not be regarded as a credible idea, or as a valid theory. The day may come when it is, but not right now.

Also intelligent design does not necessarily have to do with God, there are Saucer-heads out there who believe aliens did it, I don't believe it, but if someday we did encounter aliens who could have done such a thing the idea could be revisited.

To summerize. ID could become a valid theory IF and Only IF

1: An observable entity, willful force, or otherwise that could influence evolution is discovered.

2: There is evidence, measurable, observable, repeatable, that suggests said entity did influence evolution.

3: Alternative explanations fall short and all evidence is credible and validated.

So I hope that I have cleared up any misinterpretations that I believe ID is a valid theory. I’m only saying that it could under the right circumstances.

[JustStuit]

I see nothing about God being unobservable.

And how do suggest we observe god? Do you have any examples? It CANNOT be observed and therefore cannnot be science. ID can be regarded as religion or gooey mess but it is still not science. There is the seperation of church and state and therefore cannot be in schools.

 

1: An observable entity, willful force, or otherwise that could influence evolution is discovered.

What are you talking about? When was this force discovered? Hint : It wasn't.

2: There is evidence, measurable, observable, repeatable, that suggests said entity did influence evolution.

Care to back that up? I'll give you one hint - you CAN'T.

 

3: Alternative explanations fall short and all evidence is credible and validated.

Strawmanning, even if they did fall short that does NOT make ID correct or even plausible.

 

So I hope that I have cleared up any misinterpretations that I believe ID is a valid theory. I’m only saying that it could under the right circumstances.

So I hope that I have cleared up any musinterpretations of ID for you and how it is NOT and CANNOT be a theory. I'm only saying it can NEVER be science under any circumstances.

[Phi for All]

The Merriam Webster Dictionary definition:

God: 1 The supreme reality: esp the Being worshiped as the creator and ruler of the universe.

2 A being or object and to require worship and is believed to have supernatural attributes and powers

3 A person or thing of supreme value.

I see nothing about God being unobservable.

Do you "see" God' date=' any god? Isn't the idea of a god working behind the scenes and not revealing Himself to mankind a large part of the major religions? Isn't belief without proof what faith is all about? Doesn't it invalidate faith if God is observable?

Also God is only "believed to have supernatural attributes and powers " God does not definitely have supernatural attributes and powers.

Furthermore God may turn out to be something far different than Christ, or Alla, you don't know if God even has a name, or is a person.

If you believe some people God is a subtle force, possibly a physical phenomenon that has no attributes of anything like a personality. Perhaps God is more like the Force in Star Wars, a willful force like the Greek and Roman Rota, or Fate, a Force that acts willfully.

Your definition of God is too narrow.

For the purposes of this discussion, we're not using *my* definition of God, we're using ID's version of God as a director of physical forces, a supernatural being who is necessary because an undirected process such as natural selection is unscientific with regards to ID "science".

 

I personally don't rule out a higher power who, within the framework of natural physics, can manipulate forces to a degree beyond our comprehension. Creating the earth in six days is not necessary for a being like this. To me, waiting patiently for evolution to take it's course is much more awe-inspiring.

If you more carefully read what I had written earlier you will find that I did come to the conclusion through some review that ID, because it is not yet refutable, or otherwise provable it should not be regarded as a credible idea, or as a valid theory. The day may come when it is, but not right now.

This tells me you have not truly understood nor studied what ID is all about. ID will NEVER become a credible theory because it's insistence on a supernatural "designer" can't be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, are not falsifiable and create no hypotheses of their own. ID would have to change COMPLETELY in order to be considered science.

Also intelligent design does not necessarily have to do with God, there are Saucer-heads out there who believe aliens did it, I don't believe it, but if someday we did encounter aliens who could have done such a thing the idea could be revisited.

Again, *NOT* science!

To summerize. ID could become a valid theory IF and Only IF

1: An observable entity, willful force, or otherwise that could influence evolution is discovered.

2: There is evidence, measurable, observable, repeatable, that suggests said entity did influence evolution.

3: Alternative explanations fall short and all evidence is credible and validated.

So I hope that I have cleared up any misinterpretations that I believe ID is a valid theory. I’m only saying that it could under the right circumstances.

Ask the people at the Discovery Institute if they will leave God out of the equation. See what the response is.

 

I understand you are saying to keep an open mind. The problem with ID is that it wants to be taught alongside regular science in public school classrooms *NOW*. It is based on the supernatural, which is not science. When it becomes *not* supernatural, it can be studied, experimented with, hypothesized and subjected to the rigors of scientific method by experts. Perhaps 100 years after that time it can be introduced to classrooms full of impressionable young students. Not before.

 

Under *these* circumstances, you know, changing it's basic foundation and approach and everything, it might make a valid theory someday.

 

 

 

Or not.

[Dr. Dalek]

And how do suggest we observe god? Do you have any examples? It CANNOT be observed and therefore cannot be science. ID can be regarded as religion or gooey mess but it is still not science. There is the separation of church and state and therefore cannot be in schools.

The constatation says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" it does not say "we shall keep anything remotely religious away from public schools"

 

What are you talking about? When was this force discovered? Hint : It wasn't.

 

Care to back that up? I'll give you one hint - you CAN'T.

 

 

Strawmanning' date=' even if they did fall short that does NOT make ID correct or even plausible. .[/quote']

My assertion is a hypothetical situation, contemplating the aftermath of the discovery of such things, not saying that they have been already. Furthermore there are some who are of the opinion that God is not supernatural.

Re-read my text!

 

 

So I hope that I have cleared up any misinterpretations of ID for you and how it is NOT and CANNOT be a theory. I'm only saying it can NEVER be science under any circumstances.

 

Science rejects no things, it is the study of the world, if such a study leads to an intelligent designer, God, aliens, Larry King so be it!

[Dr. Dalek]

Do you "see" God, any god? Isn't the idea of a god working behind the scenes and not revealing Himself to mankind a large part of the major religions? Isn't belief without proof what faith is all about? Doesn't it invalidate faith if God is observable?

 

Who cares about faith? I'm an agnostic.

 

ID is not science, I agree with that. Keep it for Philosophy class.

For now,

[ydoaPs]

Who cares about faith?

if you don't care about faith, then why argue for ID? all it is is faith.

[Dr. Dalek]

As of right now I neither believe in nor trust any organized religion.

I am trying approach ID as a philosophical argument not a theological one.

ID is a philisophical, and sometimes a religious idea that should not be taught as a science, but shoud not be outright rejected.

I do not care if I am alone in this assertion!

[ecoli]

As of right now I neither believe in nor trust any organized religion.

I am trying approach ID as a philosophical argument not a theological one.

ID is a philisophical' date=' and sometimes a religious idea that should not be taught as a science, but shoud not be outright rejected.

I do not care if I am alone in this assertion![/quote']

 

You're not alone in this assertion. While I don't share you're mistrust in organized religion, I appreatiate your foresight in saying that ID should not be outrightly rejected (except in the science classroom). I believe our treatment of ID as a philosophical argument is similiar. You are certainly not alone in your beliefs.

[ydoaPs]

As of right now I neither believe in nor trust any organized religion.

I am trying approach ID as a philosophical argument not a theological one.

ID is a philisophical' date=' and sometimes a religious idea that should not be taught as a science, but shoud not be outright rejected.

I do not care if I am alone in this assertion![/quote']

that doesn't change that is is based on faith.

 

if you look around, most of us don't care if it is taught as religion. just keep it out of the science class room.

[JustStuit]

The constatation says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" it does not say "we shall keep anything remotely religious away from public schools"

If you are in the US, then yes, there is a seperation of Church and State clause to the first ammendment! Research before you talk.

 

My assertion is a hypothetical situation, contemplating the aftermath of the discovery of such things, not saying that they have been already. Furthermore there are some who are of the opinion that God is not supernatural.

Re-read my text!

There can be no scientific evidense PROVING or DISPROVING god therefore it is not science.

 

Science rejects no things, it is the study of the world, if such a study leads to an intelligent designer, God, aliens, Larry King so be it!

Science does reject such things, theories MUST be testable and able to be proven wrong. Again, if you have no knowledge of the subject, research it FIRST. Get the FACTS straight. ID IS NOT, CANNOT, and NEVER will be science.

[PhDP]

However ID may have a place in the future when science is more advanced. A book called "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukav, is an over view of modern physics. At one point it compares Hindu Beliefs to Quantum Physics. For instance on page 309 Gary says "While it would be naive to overstate the similarities between Bohm's physics and eastern philosophies, it would be foolish to ignore them."

 

The idea of trying to use the prestige of science to provide a justificiation for religion is not new, however IMHO it seems quite unlikely that science would end up justifying superstitions instead of debunking them. Also, like I just said in another topic, the problem of ID is not only that it's not science, but evolution doesn't seem at all to be directed. It's quite hard for an IDist to explain why God would so often lead life forms to dead ends and inneficient design.

 

But I really like the parallel you're drawing between Zukav and ID. Many monotheists, with creationism, have been quite successful in spreading confusion. Just some time ago, I've read here on this forum that "evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamic". I'll give you a hint; that guy didn't learn that in a textbook. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.

 

At the same time, many "New Age" enthousiasts (that include Zukav), have also spread confusion... in physics. It's simply astonishing to see how many of them "know" about the uncertainty principle, what's even more astonishing is their interpretation of it. Just like creationism is doing to biology, "New Agers" (is that a word ?) are deforming science with enthousiam; just read Chopra (quantum physics means that we don't age).

 

So I think the parallel you draw between quantum physics and evolutionary biology is perfectly valid, but I really can't see how the various distortions made by some religious people in those area could be, in the futur, integrated into science.

[sabbath]

As of right now I neither believe in nor trust any organized religion.

I am trying approach ID as a philosophical argument not a theological one.

ID is a philisophical' date=' and sometimes a religious idea that should not be taught as a science, but shoud not be outright rejected.

I do not care if I am alone in this assertion![/quote']

 

I agree with you that ID should not be taught as a science, but should not be rejected outright. We should keep the channels open, and not narrow the meaning of what science is. However, as our present technology or "science" can neither prove it or disprove it, it should not be discredited as of yet.

 

A perfect example of mixing in ID with Evolution Theory was my class' case. In our sophomore biology, our teacher who was a Christian (all of us in school are except for 1 muslim) presented the Evolution Theory with Intelligent Design and asked our class to have a debate on it. Of course, since everybody in school was a Christian, ID more or less won the debate...though the final statement from the teacher was that, it was up to our faith or something of the sort to choose what to believe, and that there was not enough evidence to prove Evolution theory anyway.

 

I think that was a total mess. More or less, many of us continue to be confused about it, and some of my peers feel guilty sometimes when we look upon the issue on a scientific approach. Questions like "Are we going to burn in hell if we think like this?" pop up. It's quite hard for us. We go to a supposedly science high school. But we were brought up in the "faith". It's hard to break away from that societal or religious obligation and become a scientist. No one can say he's atheist here for fear of raising eyebrows.

 

It's really hard, and most of us tend to avoid the issue, because we are uncertain which stand to take, especially because even the authorities are not taking a stand. This is because of culture, and nailed traditions are hard to break. I think it's easier there in the US because it's more modern, and the church does not play a large role in governance, besides you have not been colonized through religion. We have. And though the bloody revolution has ended, the battle for liberal though is still ongoing.

[ydoaPs]

Who cares about faith? I'm an agnostic.

then why refer to the UFO crowd with a condescending tone, but not the Christian IDiots?

 

ID is not science, I agree with that. Keep it for Philosophy class.

For now,

it doesn't belong in philosophy class any more than it does science. it is religion. religion!=philosophy

philosophy asks questions; religion is preconceived answers that must be taken by faith and are not to be questioned. ID is clearly the latter.

 

 

If you are in the US, then yes, there is a seperation of Church and State clause to the first ammendment!

no, there's not.

 

Research before you talk.

see below

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Dr. Dalek]

If you are in the US, then yes, there is a separation of Church and State clause to the first amendment! Research before you talk.

I have a copy of the US constitution in my sock drawer and consulted the text of the first amendment on Wikipedia before my last post.

 

 

There can be no scientific evidence PROVING or DISPROVING god therefore it is not science..

You sound so certain, do you perhaps think yourself a God. Science is almost never absolutely certain. Stop using bizarre absolutes in your arguments.

 

 

Science does reject such things, theories MUST be testable and able to be proven wrong. Again, if you have no knowledge of the subject, research it FIRST. Get the FACTS straight. ID IS NOT, CANNOT, and NEVER will be science.

I have already said it is not a theory, I'm saying it could become one under vary specific circumstances that could conceivably happen in the future, though not likely the near future.

You accuse me of not doing research yet you have not thoroughly read my arguments.

Further more you are using more bizarre absolutes, and they make for very bad reasoning.

Also I have found a few spelling errors in your text it might be in your best interest to do what I do and copy your text onto a word program and spell checking it before submitting.

(Aside) Boy this is a fun debate.

[Dr. Dalek]

then why refer to the UFO crowd with a condescending tone, but not the Christian IDiots?

I used to be a member of the UFO crowd. I believe that many of them are credible and intelligent individuals with an honest and worthy opinion, however some such as the Saucer-heads (my affectionate nickname), are completely off their rocker in my opinion and take credibility away from other more objective individuals.

I trust individual Christians, not their organization. Large organizations tend to give in to group think, which is a dangerous psychological phenomenon.

it doesn't belong in philosophy class any more than it does science. it is religion. religion!=philosophy

philosophy asks questions; religion is preconceived answers that must be taken by faith and are not to be questioned. ID is clearly the latter.

 

Philosophy tends to overlap to a certain extent on faith and science. I subscribe to no God, God is hypothetical to me, therefore since I am constantly asking questions about God and seeking answers in a private way; it can be called philosophy because I have no significant predetermined notions about what God should be. I like the archetype of God as a vague willful force, but I would change that belief if it were proven otherwise.

I appreciate that you understand I am just saying to keep an open mind.

[Dr. Dalek]

You're not alone in this assertion. While I don't share you're mistrust in organized religion, I appreatiate your foresight in saying that ID should not be outrightly rejected (except in the science classroom). I believe our treatment of ID as a philosophical argument is similiar. You are certainly not alone in your beliefs.

Thank you, I was getting tired of playing defense.

[Phi for All]

I have already said it is not a theory, I'm saying it could become one under vary certain circumstances that could conceivably happen in the future, though not likely the near future.

What you're saying here is that God can be proven if he ever shows up and sticks around long enough to be studied. Duh!

 

God / gods are defined by their absence from affairs of mortals except through "mysterious ways" and allegedly answered prayers and background machinations. They ask worshippers to have faith in their existence. You blew me off the last time I mentioned faith but you should consider that it is this faith that means God / gods are DEFINED by their unobservability. Therefore, any *theory* which includes a God / gods as an intelligent designer CAN NOT be a scientific one, due to the lack of predictability and observation. Do you see? ID will NEVER be an accepted scientific theory until it is so fundamentally changed that you really can't even call it ID anymore.

 

And by the way, your spell checker missed that "under vary certain circumstances" should be very, not vary. I point this out since I know you're very concerned about everyone's spelling.

[Dr. Dalek]

What you're saying here is that God can be proven if he ever shows up and sticks around long enough to be studied. Duh!.

So your turning what I say into an obvious statement and then refuting it?

That’s less scientific than ID.

Your not arguing the point, your just using clever wording to discredit it.

 

God / gods are defined by their absence from affairs of mortals except through "mysterious ways" and allegedly answered prayers and background machinations. They ask worshippers to have faith in their existence. You blew me off the last time I mentioned faith but you should consider that it is this faith that means God / gods are DEFINED by their unobservability. Therefore, any *theory* which includes a God / gods as an intelligent designer CAN NOT be a scientific one, due to the lack of predictability and observation. Do you see? ID will NEVER be an accepted scientific theory until it is so fundamentally changed that you really can't even call it ID anymore. .

 

I hate repeating myself but . . .

YOUR DEFINITION OF GOD IS TOO NARROW!

What I have stated up until now is an opinion. It is a generally accepted belief that opinions cannot be wrong. My opinion is not wrong, your opinion is not wrong.

We just disagree on the details.

Thank you for pointing out my vary-very error, I will endeavor to improve on that in the future.

[Phi for All]

So your turning what I say into an obvious statement and then refuting it?

That’s less scientific than ID.

Your not arguing the point' date=' your just using clever wording to discredit it.[/quote']I'm trying to show you that you're asking ID to be something completely different in order to be accepted. I'm not trying to strawman you on this.

 

Really simply put, you keep saying that ID may become accepted sometime in the future so science should keep an open mind about it, right? I'm just saying that because ID involves a supernatural creator who hides, unobservable, in the background, it CAN'T EVER be part of scientific theory.

 

Any argument that supports ID, in it's present fundamental form, as a scientific theory, is flawed from the start because it involves an untestable, unpredictable, unobservable designer.

I hate repeating myself but . . .

YOUR DEFINITION OF GOD IS TOO NARROW!

What I have stated up until now is an opinion. It is a generally accepted belief that opinions cannot be wrong. My opinion is not wrong, your opinion is not wrong.

We just disagree on the details.

This is not my definition of God! I'm narrowing it to it's fundamental level to show you, VERY SIMPLY, why ID is NOT a science.

 

Can you give me ANY example of a god that can be observed, tested and falsified? Because that is what science asks of ALL theories.

[Dr. Dalek]

Any argument that supports ID' date=' [u']in it's present fundamental form[/u], as a scientific theory, is flawed from the start because it involves an untestable, unpredictable, unobservable designer.

This is not my definition of God! I'm narrowing it to it's fundamental level to show you, VERY SIMPLY, why ID is NOT a science.

 

Ah,

Okay let me restate.

The ID of today is NOT science. A similar idea, possibly in the future, could be a scientific theory, but not based exactly on the ID of today because of the narrow Judeo/Christian interpritation of God.

 

That has been my opinion the whole time. I apologize if I miss-communicated it.

[RyanJ]

Ah' date='

Okay let me restate.

The ID of today is [i']NOT[/i] science. A similar idea, possibly in the future, could be a scientific theory, but not based exactly on the ID of today because of the narrow Judeo/Christian interpritation of God.

 

That has been my opinion the whole time. I apologize if I miss-communicated it.

 

 

I don't think ID will never be a science as its not based on science at all if there is some creator behing the whole thing... some part of the formulations will always be missing because of the creator element and untestable as a result... its not and will never be a science believe.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Phi for All]

A similar idea, possibly in the future, could be a scientific theory, but not[/b'] based exactly on the ID of today because of the narrow Judeo/Christian interpritation of God.

Without trying to nitpick, which definition of God are you thinking of that science could observe and test?

[JustStuit]

From Wikipedia

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

Supreme Court decisions

 

The phrase "separation of church and state" became a definitive part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Everson also was the first case to interpret the Clause as imposing a restraint on the states as well as the federal government, based upon the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

In 1962, the Supreme Court banned from public schools all public prayers and religious readings done for religious purposes. The Supreme Court continued to allow private prayer. As such, any teacher, faculty, or student can pray in school, in accordance with their own religion. However, they may not lead such prayers in class, or in other "official" school settings such as assemblies or programs. Even "non-sectarian" teacher-led prayers are not allowed, e.g. "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country," which was part of the prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the decision of the Warren Court in Engel v. Vitale.

 

The court noted that it "is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America." [5]

 

As authorized by state law, the "Almighty God" prayer had followed the teacher-led pledge of allegiance to the flag, which consisted of the following: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." The pledge did not contain the words "Under God" until 1954, when Congress added them to the pledge. While the Court banned the "Almighty God" prayer, whose purported purpose was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator," it did not deliberate upon the "Under God" pledge.

 

Religion expression as part of school concerts or plays was debated before a 1980 court ruling, Florey v. Sioux Falls School District, which was upheld by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The ruling allows religious songs to be performed at school concerts as long as secular songs are also included. So "Silent Night" might be followed by something like "Frosty the Snowman" or "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer."

I think the clause has been come to be interprited seperation of state and church and is ruled accordingly.

[Dr. Dalek]

Without trying to nitpick, which definition of God are you thinking of that science could observe and test?

 

Well, for example here is a quote on an e-mail conversation between me and a friend of mine who is a highschool senior and a member of Mensa. He is a genius and intends to study relativity in college.

 

 

----------------- Original Message -----------------

From: Dr Dalek

Date: Apr 20' date=' 2006 10:01 AM

 

I had one of those days where I forget who I am and start thinking random thoughts.

I began to wonder about god(s)

In ancient Greece it was believed the first gods, the Titans, were born from Chaos.

These days it is speculated that life began from Chaos and Man came from life.

Think of me as asking advice from the Church of Jake on Spiritual matters.

According to my train of thought, could humans be some kind of God?

 

 

Response:

To answer your question, yes, it is highly possible. You are comprised of millions upon millions of microscopic cells. Each cell in and of itself is unique, is it not? It exists on a completely different level of existence than humans do. They communicate with each other, eat, grow, divide, and fill out functions that, as an individual, might even warrant individuality had such things not been so primitive. Or perhaps we are just as primitive to someone looking up.

 

The cell is comprised of atoms much like we, the macroscopic organisms, are comprised of cells. At basest of existence are perhaps cosmic strings, but as we work our way up the hierarchy of existence, one can almost see a pyramidal figure. Many would consider humans at the pinnacle, moving down we are comprised of organs, which are comprised of tissues, which are comprised of cells, which are comprised of organelles, which are comprised of molecules, which are comprised of atoms, which are comprised of fermions, which are theoretically comprised of cosmic strings. None of these particles, save us, have any awareness of the step before or after it. Would it not be arrogance to state that we must be the highest tier since we have no concept of a higher level of organization since all other steps of that pyramid of organization had no concept of the other?

 

Perhaps we are in essence merely 'cells', or another step, on the pyramid I have defined. Perhaps at the pinnacle is a God-like figure and we are in fact all part of god?

 

Want to know one of the greatest accomplishments of life? We are able to process information. All the universe is information. Atoms are merely letters of a language. We perceive the world around us as information. Each sensory perception is the gathering of data to be sorted and used and reacted to. One thing that always consistently overwhelms me is the fact that the universe, in it's infinitely complexity, spawned organisms that can turn and look at the universe, which we are a part of, and examine it. In essence, the universe learns about itself through us.

 

I was once asked by a Christian physicist "Why would god create the universe?" Perhaps that is the answer. We are all merely aspects of god, a portion he created the universe around in an effort to understand himself. To test and to learn who he, she, or whatever the hell it is. Perhaps the figure many call God is in fact the universe itself.

 

This also can blur with odd thoughts of free will versus predetermination. The universe adheres to a strict set of rules. If one particle comes into contact with another, their interaction is already decided my the laws of physics. Thus, each interaction is, technically, although beyond or capability, to be utterly calculable and predictable. Since all particles that existed came into existence at the dawn of time (those last to sentence are highly debatable, but in this argument, to save space since this is already becoming verbose, we will neglect the physics behind thus, being far above our scope of understanding currently), would it not be safe to say that every interaction between the creation of those particles are predictable at least on a cosmic scale, and if it is all predictable then is it not to safe to say that everything that will ever happen will be predictable and follow the strict guidelines of the laws of physics? And thus, every indirection has been set in motion since the dawn of time. The implications of which means that there is no free will, since all of our decisions thoughts, etc, are merely chemical reactions in the brain of our interpretation of data and or processing of said data and all of those interactions follow the strictures of the universe. If there was free will it would be the only known power in existence to completely disavow the rule of physics.

 

These thoughts were merely meant to inspire thoughts themselves, and in return for mine I humbly ask yours on said subject in return.

 

Peace,

Jake [/quote']

Jake here suggests that the Universe itself, or some aspect if it is God. If this is so it could eventually could be found that the Universe is willful, or intelligent, even in the vaguest sense this might mean that this hypothetical future theory similar to "Intelligent Design" could be based around the idea of a willful aspect to the universe which could be eventually measured with the proper understanding of it. God might be a force that interacts with matter on a basic level and causes physical phenomenon, in that sense that means that the physical phenomenon associated with life and its origins might be attributed with this force.

Jake has also suggested, outside of e-mail, that God might be a being that exists in more dimensions of space than the three dimensions, and fourth dimension of time, that we know of.

Personally I have always wondered about how we humans feel sensations and see color as opposed to just data, like a robot would. I often wonder if a simple being with a puny brain made of interacting cells like us can have consciousness and self awareness, why can't the interacting energy and matter of the Universe have a mind of sorts as well.

With today’s science this is virtually impossible to prove incorrect or otherwise. However given what we do know it is conceivable that they could be in the future.