Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
StarMountainKid

Ben Carson - Big Bang and Evolution

189 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

OverSword

The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire

Albert Einstein.

edit to underline

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbenol

The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire

Albert Einstein.

edit to underline

Exactly. He's talking about "natural law".

I don't think you can apply that to the principles of Intelligent Design as outlined by it's proponents.

Intelligent Design as the alternative to Darwinian evolution is a theistic argument - one of specific intervention in the process.

As I understand Einstein's quote - he's referring to the laws of the universe that govern it's processes. Not that these processes are subject to subsequent tinkering. I think that's an important distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

Exactly. He's talking about "natural law".

I don't think you can apply that to the principles of Intelligent Design as outlined by it's proponents.

Intelligent Design as the alternative to Darwinian evolution is a theistic argument - one of specific intervention in the process.

As I understand Einstein's quote - he's referring to the laws of the universe that govern it's processes. Not that these processes are subject to subsequent tinkering. I think that's an important distinction.

read again, natural law reveals an intelligence. I bet Einstein understood the definition of intelligence.

Full Definition of INTELLIGENCE (merriam webster)

1

a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

b Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind

c : mental acuteness : shrewdness

2

a : an intelligent entity; especially : angel

b : intelligent minds or mind <cosmic intelligence>

3

: the act of understanding : comprehension

4

a : information, news

b : information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or an area; also : an agency engaged in obtaining such information

5

: the ability to perform computer functions

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbenol

read again, natural law reveals an intelligence. I bet Einstein understood the definition of intelligence.

Full Definition of INTELLIGENCE (merriam webster)

1

a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

b Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind

c : mental acuteness : shrewdness

2

a : an intelligent entity; especially : angel

b : intelligent minds or mind <cosmic intelligence>

3

: the act of understanding : comprehension

4

a : information, news

b : information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or an area; also : an agency engaged in obtaining such information

5

: the ability to perform computer functions

You said

Tell it to Einstein. He believed in intelligent design. By all accounts he was a pretty smart fella with a much better understanding of the physical universe than 99.999% of the people that have ever been born.

in response to Shadowsot saying that ID doesn't work in actual science. He was referring specifically to biological evolution. That's what this conversation is about.

Einstein's position of advocating intelligence has nothing to do with evolution. Therefore, that appeal to authority is somewhat irrelevant to the topic. If the topic was about a cosmological argument for intelligent design then it would be relevant. But it isn't.

I'm happy to be corrected on this if you can find any quote of Einstein's that advocates ID in biological processes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

Great. I have read a good bit of his literature, as I mentioned. He alternatively identified as an agnostic, a pantheist.

The later writings of his made more the case for physical law.

I don't know what his views were, except that he changed them over his life.

But, you seem to have ignored most of my post. Einstein was an expert in his field a century ago. How he viewed the work of science was his own, and obviously his belief on intelligent design is not shared among his modern day peers.

You said

in response to Shadowsot saying that ID doesn't work in actual science. He was referring specifically to biological evolution. That's what this conversation is about.

Einstein's position of advocating intelligence has nothing to do with evolution. Therefore, that appeal to authority is somewhat irrelevant to the topic. If the topic was about a cosmological argument for intelligent design then it would be relevant. But it isn't.

I'm happy to be corrected on this if you can find any quote of Einstein's that advocates ID in biological processes.

it wouldnt be relevant, though. His expertise wasnt in biology or evolution.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

Oversword, out of curiosity have you read much of his work, or are you kust posting the quote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbenol

it wouldnt be relevant, though. His expertise wasnt in biology or evolution.

I know. You're right.

But we all like to make appeals to authority from time to time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

You said

in response to Shadowsot saying that ID doesn't work in actual science. He was referring specifically to biological evolution. That's what this conversation is about.

Einstein's position of advocating intelligence has nothing to do with evolution. Therefore, that appeal to authority is somewhat irrelevant to the topic. If the topic was about a cosmological argument for intelligent design then it would be relevant. But it isn't.

I'm happy to be corrected on this if you can find any quote of Einstein's that advocates ID in biological processes.

I say that it's all part of the cosmos. You can't have intelligent cosmos without that including everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

and obviously his belief on intelligent design is not shared among his modern day peers.

That is not obvious at all. I'll bet I can search google and find modern physicists that also believe in intelligent design if not a deity.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

That is not obvious at all. I'll bet I can search google and find modern physicists that also believe in intelligent design if not a deity.

Sure can. You can also find scholars who reject evolution, big bang, the spherical Earth, and any number of things.

Hawking, who is his peer in both the field and in public consciousness, disagree.

Worth noting that Hawking wrote in his Brief History of Time, about knowing the mind of God.

Fortunately this was the more modern day and Hawking is still alive to clarify his intent.

Which is why I asked if you had read his works.

He also doubted quantum physics, and didn't trust his own work when it showed an expanding universe.

He was a genoius, but he wasn't all knowing and just because he said something doesn't make it by default true.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbenol

I say that it's all part of the cosmos. You can't have intelligent cosmos without that including everything.

To an extent I agree.

The question of intelligence in the cosmos can take various forms.

You might believe that an intelligence set the whole thing in motion, putting in place all the natural laws that we have, and then left it alone.

Or, you might believe that this intelligence continues to intervene - pushing evolution in a particular direction, for example.

Or, you might believe that no intelligence or intent was necessary for all that we can perceive.

I tend to think that Einstein (amongst others) might have advocated for the first. The proponents of ID subscribe to the second.

From what I can gather, Carson subscribes to neither. He appears to be a young earth creationist and therefore would reject many accepted scientific paradigms - including the big bang, plate tectonics, common descent, etc.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

definitionally a miracle is where the natural law has been affected.

So which is it? A miracle "violates" natural law or does it just "affect" it?

If you have your own definition, fine, but that is what the word means.

It's not my definition. It's just that you need to update your perception of it. We have a better understanding of what miracles are. We're understaning that there are natural effects from super natural causes which brings up the question to if it was truely a miracle.

Same to with deist.

Even deists evolve and for the reasons I gave.

If you believe Jesus was god or an aspect or became one, you believe god does get involved in the worl, making you at best a weak Christian deist.

Or the definition you are familar with was short sighted. Anyone truely enlighten will move on. To place that restriction on GOD is likewise, short sighted. The question becomes not that GOD doesn't get envolved but to what extent?

And yes, I know plenty of mechanics who dont. I know plenty of others who can only switch parts without any greater understanding. I work in a machine shop.

Then you're being a bit untruthful in order to make a point. I know many mechanics and very few only do it as a job. They are always tinkering with something like their own vehicles or their kids. I support a group of engineers and mathematicians. You know that quote Dr. McCoy made, "damn engineers, they're always changing something"? That is so very true. They are always tweaking things.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

It seems your useage of the terms hasnt promulgated to the regular or philosophical dictionaries.

There is some varianve in deistic beliefs, but at the same time deistic by itself does not hold god, Jesus, and the Bile being prime.

And I work in a machine shop, out of fifteen to twenty people maybe three or four could be considered real engineers. Most are simply capable of maintenance and repair.

Edited by ShadowSot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

The deist god is a machinist, too, but not much into maintenance and repair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

And what are those three things? (just wanting to be clear.)

Will you agree that science is not an opinion poll and as such if scientific evidence exists that shows that anthropomorphic climate change does not exist, then by the scientific principle has disproved ACC? Evidence does exist, so ACC is just a matter of opinion.

I would agree but we also don't need someone that will destroy the moral foundations that this nation was built on (i.e. by militant atheism or Islam). But I hardly would consider Carson as a religious fanatic.

The greatest enemy of science and this nation is basing critical decisions on opinion masquerading as science (i.e. ACC) driven by an anti-American Exceptionalism policy.

Your exactly right about science not been an opinion poll so when 97% of scientists qualified to have an opinion agree that a piece of science is true that makes it accepted science. There will always been fringe quacks who deny the scientific reality - but their opinion remains quackery regardless.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Not unnecessarily. A miracle is when GOD interacts with his creation. Sometimes things that violate natural law occur. It's not a requirement that it does.

A strict deist, perhaps, but it depends on how you view Jesus. I.e. the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. Is Jesus GOD? Is he man? Is he just a different aspect of GOD?

Do you know of any mechanic or any tinkerer that doesn't tweak his creation?

A Diest by definition cannot believe in Jesus because as Shadowsot said - they believe that they started creation and then took no further part in it, ie they didn't intervene through the medium of an incarnate person.

Your not going to try to mangle another standard definition to your agenda are you ?

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I don't follow, OS? Who is BR and what does climate change have to do with it?

Not being snarky, just curious.

Edit: I think I've figured it out. Thanks

BR refers to me.

Like a good climate change denier they are trying to say that accepting science is somehow equivalent to treating science as a religion.

Its a popular tactic when you haven't got any evidence to dispute the science itself. Makes me chuckle.

Br Cornelius

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bama13

Bama, hear me out, here.

You're taking things too literally. The terms idiot, moron and imbecile used to be legitimate medical terms to refer to those who fell into certain IQ ranges. I don't think a single critic of Carson's - atleast on this forum - somehow feels this man is behind the intellectual Bell Curve. His credentials say as much.

People are saying he's a political idiot for the same reasons I previously stated. He has zero experience and it shows dearly. To me, there's no reason for me to accept him any more than I do the other candidates. That's not saying much, though.

I don't understand why you hang on that word so defiantly. People don't think Carson is a stupid man, in general. When people say I'm an idiot with quantum physics, I can't argue much.

I understand what you are saying but why isn't Br C here explaining what he meant? I think BR actually meant that he thinks Carson is an idiot. Of course Br also thinks we get our rights from the government so he isn't all that bright himself. People that aren't that bright tend to say, and mean, stupid things. It is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I understand what you are saying but why isn't Br C here explaining what he meant? I think BR actually meant that he thinks Carson is an idiot. Of course Br also thinks we get our rights from the government so he isn't all that bright himself. People that aren't that bright tend to say, and mean, stupid things. It is what it is.

Bama some sour grapes there. Remind me where did your rights come from - God ? That can't eb right though since not everyone believe in God and yet they still have the same rights under the Constitution. So maybe it was the Government of the time who wrote that legal document who gave you your rights. By the way they also took away quite a few rights which previously seems your natural entitlement (slaves to name one). If you really believe your rights come from some mystical place - good luck in invoking that mystical force when looking for justice if someone shoots you.

Lets say you had a brain tumour - would you go to a climate scientist for treatment or maybe Dr Carlson. Similarly when looking for advice about policy regarding the environment would you go to your corporate sponsor (the Koch brothers) for advice or go to a climate expert.

There are two options, Dr Carlson is either a useful idiot for the Koch brothers (my guess) or he is just a plain idiot on his own behalf for ignoring the best available evidence. Which ever way you cut it he's one kind of idiot.

Whatever way you cut it, anyone who ignores the best available evidence in favour of personal opinion has no place in Government.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

It seems now that been anti-Pope Francis is becoming part of the package to become a fully fledged Rub. I wonder how that one is going to play out among the 72million Catholics in America :tu:

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bama13

Bama some sour grapes there. Remind me where did your rights come from - God ? That can't eb right though since not everyone believe in God and yet they still have the same rights under the Constitution. So maybe it was the Government of the time who wrote that legal document who gave you your rights. By the way they also took away quite a few rights which previously seems your natural entitlement (slaves to name one). If you really believe your rights come from some mystical place - good luck in invoking that mystical force when looking for justice if someone shoots you.

Lets say you had a brain tumour - would you go to a climate scientist for treatment or maybe Dr Carlson. Similarly when looking for advice about policy regarding the environment would you go to your corporate sponsor (the Koch brothers) for advice or go to a climate expert.

There are two options, Dr Carlson is either a useful idiot for the Koch brothers (my guess) or he is just a plain idiot on his own behalf for ignoring the best available evidence. Which ever way you cut it he's one kind of idiot.

Whatever way you cut it, anyone who ignores the best available evidence in favour of personal opinion has no place in Government.

Br Cornelius

My rights came from being born. They existed before there were governments. The government does protect my rights, but they didn't grant them.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

My rights came from being born. They existed before there were governments. The government does protect my rights, but they didn't grant them.

seez you, fact is there is nor right not been granted by the "ruler", present or past. All you get from being born is hunger. Just ask all those who don't have any rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

He was a genoius, but he wasn't all knowing and just because he said something doesn't make it by default true.

Obviously. The point I was making is that you don't have to be an idiot to believe in it.

Oversword, out of curiosity have you read much of his work, or are you kust posting the quote?

Sorry didn't see this yesterday, not since the 80's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bama13

seez you, fact is there is nor right not been granted by the "ruler", present or past. All you get from being born is hunger. Just ask all those who don't have any rights.

Says anyone with a brain. Fact is there were rights before there were governments. Which proves my point. Not gonna argue with y'all again about this. It is so obvious that anyone that doesn't know this simply doesn't want to. I can lead you to water but I can't make you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Says anyone with a brain. Fact is there were rights before there were governments. Which proves my point. Not gonna argue with y'all again about this. It is so obvious that anyone that doesn't know this simply doesn't want to. I can lead you to water but I can't make you think.

Right... too bad the last American slave has died a few years back, ask him what he got from being born. He got it because the government fought for it.

You can look at any Fata Morgana you want: It still is not water.

And the more people like you claim to "have rights" instead of demanding their rights the more a corrupt government will enslave us.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.