I read about the proof of Kato's Conjecture, but I couldn't even understand the statement of the problem.

Interesting. But I must say the biggest problem I have with this whole "conflict" between ID and evolution is that in the scientific community, there is no conflict.

ID is not a theory, period. But at the same time, evolutionism does NOT refute the existence of a god - it fundamentally can't, nor does it claim to. Supporters of ID like to use that extremist view to support their fight for creationism - make people think that evolution is some cold, atheistic belief showing life to be an unforgiving game of chance. That is simply not the case. All evolution does, in terms of religion, is refute the "exactness" of the Bible, and suggest that just maybe, this universe wasn't put here just for us, the "allmighty humans". We like to think that we are the most important living things, created with some special intentions in mind. While science fundamentally does NOT suppose the universe operates as means to an end (things happening for a reason), most scientist do believe in god, and think that just maybe, this god put evolution into swing. And yes, the argument for ID is not simpler, but rather more complex and less logical (despite the supporters' claim that life is just "too complex" to be explained by evolution).

It is just such a shame to me that these hard-core creationists can't see the beauty and wonder and, yes, intellligence in the process of evolution. It answers a lot of questions, but poses even more that we would have never dreamed of. Now, more than ever, I see a distinct difference between religion and spirituality.

"Design is not a real alternative to chance at all because it raises an even bigger problem than it solves: Who designed the designer?"

Dawkins should know better than to say only religion has a problem with what came before. Physics also has the paradox of how we now have something instead of nothing.

It's an unsolveable mystery to science as well as religion.

-RP

The difference is the Science doesn't claim to have an answer and religion does.

RP,

Yes, mainstream science makes certain assumptions, as well. You explain one phenomenon by positing causes. Hopefully, though, the causes are more primitive, more basic than the phenomena being explained.

That's the problem with intelligent design as an explanation. Let's look again at the creationist parable: You are walking on a beach, and you find a pocketwatch. You open it up and see its intricate structure of gears, escapements, springs, etc. The natural assumption is that it was designed. But let's take this assumption further.

Suppose I explain the existence of the pocketwatch by saying that it was designed by an extremely sophisticated mechanical robot. Whether this explanation is true or not, it can't be the end of the explanation. You can ask the followup question: Where did the robot come from? If I answer by saying that the robot always existed, then I haven't really made any progress in explaining the pocketwatch. The robot is inexplicable in exactly the same way that the pocketwatch was. I could have just have well said that pocketwatch had always existed.

To make explanatory progress, I have to ultimately explain the intricate mechanisms in terms of something that doesn't have an intricate mechanism. That's what evolution does. It explains the intricate mechanisms of living organisms in terms of simpler mechanisms (ultimately, just the mechanisms of chemical processes and entropy).

Invoking an intelligent designer fails as explanatory progress unless this designer is simpler than the things it designs (or if the designer in turn were created by simpler processes).

At this point in history, spirituality and science are separate. Religion, insistently dogmatic, becomes anachronistic and irrelevant, a set of unprovable beliefs. But spirituality, (if it indeed is) the essence of everything, may well enter science in the future, perhaps by way of quantum physics.

Science deals with the hows but not with the whys. If there be meaning and purpose, we are still in the realm of belief, not verifiability.

Why would a Designer need to be simpler than its designs? I'm way out of my depth and shouldn't be posting but - I thought reductionism is no longer the primary scientific philosophy.

The whole ID debate is rather a dumb one. It's not worthy of science or religion for that matter.

My point from my previous posting is that the universe is stranger than we know and stranger than we CAN know.

When I was getting my degree in physics we had a guest lecturer talk to us about the paradoxes in physics. Some branches of physics need a universe that is always the same with no beginning or end, while another branch of physics implies that there is a beginning and an end. He had many other examples of contradictory logic needed to conduct good physics.

A recent article on quantum theory in the New York Times talks about how the theory says that a particle at one end of the universe can in certain cases influence a particle at the other end instantaneously. I like what this physicist says:

"Anton Zeilinger of the University of Vienna said that he thought, 'The world is not as real as we think. My personal opinion is that the world is even weirder than what quantum physics tells us,' he added."

Doesn't this whole frivolous debate over ID detract us from the beauty of science and the mystery of the spirit?

-RP

I should add that the reason the ID debate is so dumb rests completely on the side of it's proponents.

-RP

While I agree with the evolution group, I think this is exactly the thing that drives ID wingnuts to call their congressmen.

The wingnuts think science is directly opposed to their god. Its not.

Perhaps god didnt want to sit around and do everything by hand. Maybe he is so great he wanted to create a system that would take care of itself.

Stop pokeing the wingnuts nests.. lol

Pastafarianism aside, perhaps someone should start a religion stating that God evolved from celestial apes.

Ooh, that'd bug 'em.

.

dus7 writes: Why would a Designer need to be simpler than its designs?

It wouldn't. But if it's not, then you have another that is as puzzling as the one you have solved by positing a designer. So there is a sense in which you haven't explained anything (you've just shifted the mystery around).