Holy Bible!

[Umfriend]

Sry, no idea what you are trying to say.

[DukeP]

Good question, Nowhere.

Like the one:
Statement: Life is hard.
Question: Compared to what?

~~DukeP~~

[Umfriend]

So, uhm, the question is: "If because of the organisation, it has to have been created, then who/what created the creator?"? If that is what you meant, yes, that is a good question. Similar questioning also shows how "god" as a first mover (or Prime Cause) fails to add anything to our understanding.

[Nowhere]

Sry, no idea what you are trying to say.

Just moving your argument one level up, applicable not only to "things created" but also to who created them?
I think so at least, perhaps it's just too late...

[Nowhere]

So, uhm, the question is: "If because of the organisation, it has to have been created, then who/what created the creator?"? If that is what you meant, yes, that is a good question. Similar questioning also shows how "god" as a first mover (or Prime Cause) fails to add anything to our understanding.

Yes, that's what I've meant.

edit: this issue has reminded me of Star Trek motion picture

[Umfriend]

OK, took me a little while, but yes, I agree.

So all in all, even with all the great and interesting links cjolley provided (I read them all), my position is still that it'd be good to discuss in science class some other strains of though on the universe and explain the difference between science and speculation. It also helps to show how "science" will often be (ab)used to further an agenda. I think it is a great thing to help kids become critical and I don't see how providing some decent example, a real world example at that, does not help this cause.

[Jammrock]

I never stated that it was scientifically logical. I stated that it was a more logical idea versus ID.

[Nowhere]

I never said anything about scientific logic, only common logic (and we wonder why people confuse meaning of theory... )

[Umfriend]

I never stated that it was scientifically logical. I stated that it was a more logical idea versus ID.

I don't see how. I'm not sure it is a different idea even.

[Jammrock]

I don't see how. I'm not sure it is a different idea even.

ID states that because things like the protien and DNA, other microbiological components of cells are so complex that they couldn't be an accident. They are very specific about that from what I've read. They talk all about complexities in microbiology and whatnot.

The "things are too organized" arguement would state something like, "look at nature in general. now pull back from the ID arguement and look at the mathematical simplicities within nature. the spiraled patterns of the sunflower seeds that form Fibonacci sequences. the symetries and patterns on butterfly wings and pine cones, and all the other mathematically explianable structures within nature. they are organized, from macro to micro, and for the most part easily explainable within the realm of science and math. thus when you include the macro with the micro structures of nature, ID loses what little arguement it has, because most of the aspects of nature are NOT complex, but simple once you learn the organization."

Like I said, not scientific, but a better idea than ID, because it looks at all of nature, not just microbiology.

Jammrock

[Umfriend]

I'm still confused. Am I right then in saying that you think that ID says "It is to complex to have become without ID" while you say "It is just so logical that I can't see it without a creator"?

[Jammrock]

I'm still confused. Am I right then in saying that you think that ID says "It is to complex to have become without ID" while you say "It is just so logical that I can't see it without a creator"?

ID states that microbiology, i.e. DNA and protien structures, are so complex that they can't be "accidents" and therefore there is a chance, or outright say it was, designed by a "higher power." ID looks only at microbiology and complexities.

My arguement is that nature as a whole is one giant mathematical wonderland, both on the macro and micro level. Nature is simplicity itself once you learn the laws of nature; therefore, I'm saying, "It's just so logical that I can see it being created by a higher power." Not that it "must be," like ID says, but that I "can see the possibility."

Did that help any?

Jammrock

[Umfriend]

Yes, I think that is very close to what I posted as my understanding. Thanks for clearing that up, I do see the conceptual difference now. Sry it took so long. Heck, I even agree: I can see it being created by a higher power as well. Don't believe it, but it could be I guess.