Engineer says, the atom has a designer. Trolls disagree.

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 15, 2012

Design inference, Engineering, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In “Does the atom have a designer? When science and spirituality meet” ( Ann Arbor News, May 24, 2012), engineer Lakhi Goenka, grieving the death of his son, reflects,

Atoms are machines that enable the physical, electromagnetic (including light), nuclear, chemical, and biological (including life) functioning of the universe. Atoms are a complex assembly of interacting particles that enable the entire functioning of the universe. They are the machine that enables all other machines. It is virtually impossible to explain the structure, complexity, internal dynamics, and resulting functionality of the atom from chance events or through evolutionary mechanisms. The atom is a machine that provides multiple functions, and every machine is the product of intelligence. The atom must have a designer.

Trolls respond here. Usual nonsense.

See also The strongest argument against design

Comments

Jerad:
You postulate a creator/designer for which there is no independent physical evidence...
Again, the physical evidence for design in biology is independent from the physical evidence for design in physics, chemistry, cosmology and astronomy. If you need to see the designer in action, or have a meeting with her, the you ain't interested in science.
... and who would have to be much more complex and complicated than the issue you’re evoking ‘him’ to solve.
And you know that how?Joe_{June 17, 2012
June
06
Jun
17
17
2012
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

Axel, I am trying to be civil!! And thank you so much for your long and thoughtful reply. I know how significant particular volumes can be; I remember when I read CS Lewis Surprised by Joy years ago . . . I will keep the Huxley tome in mind and try and read it one of these days. Planck is a very interesting character. I've studied a fair amount of physics and his theological notions were never discussed. I'm not sure they needed to be brought up in a physics classroom but I would have liked to hear about them at the time. I find the quotes you report very evocative. I had heard a couple before but in the context your provide they take on a different meaning. I recently was reading one of Dr Dawkins books where he addresses the beliefs of Einstein (among others) and come to a different conclusion from you, but he didn't mention Planck!! I'm no expert but I see your point about the nature of faith/worship changing with Christ. I don't think Christianity would have survived, let alone flourish as it has, if it didn't have something about it that was different. Finally, even though I haven't said so, I probably am a materialist by most definitions. I haven't said 'cause I'm not sure and I don't like being labelled. I prefer to think of myself as being an evidentialist, if that makes sense. I prefer not having an ideology . . . I'm not sure if that's possible . . . but I'm trying!!Jerad_{June 17, 2012
June
06
Jun
17
17
2012
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Not at all. Your response was certainly more temperate and civil than mine. Since you are not materialist, you surely didn't deserve such derision - for which I apologise. I think the best thing I can do is to point you in the direction of the book that played a major role in reconverting me to Chrisitanity, specifically, the Catholic Church, namely, Aldous Huxley's essay on comparative religion: The Perennial Philosophy. That provided me with the starting point from which to learn the different requirements of the analytical intelligence and what Huxley called the 'unitive intelligence', shared by the major religions. This unitive intelligence is honed, irrespective of the mainstream religion concerned (although in different degrees, according to God's providential dispensation) by following certain precepts, indeed a way of living. This affords greater access to the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, which as well as directly infusing knowledge, coordinates the strands of our intelligence. Hence the marked preponderance in earlier centuries of what would today be regarded as religious 'nuts' at the very highest level, notably Galileo (who had wanted to become priest, but whose father, a powerful man, made sure he didn't), Newton, Pascal and Mendel. Kepler is said to have been a mystic, Pauli, though an agnostic, lapsed Catholic spoke of prior mystical insights), and Godel was a convinced Lutheran. Bohr, too, though his father, a professor of physiology was apparently a particularly devout Lutheran; while Planck, like Einstein, seems to have been a panentheist). The deeper spiritual truths are imponderable mysteries, paradoxes, not accessible to the rational mind, which Huxley believed is a kind of reducing- valve for our survival in time. Without it we would be kind of lotus-eaters, although perpetually entranced by the beatific vision, rather than apathetic and drowsy. This is perfectly consonant with the scriptural precept concerning the poor being rich in faith. After Christ's day, the nature of our faith changed in some regards. It was always about commitment, rather than credence. Certainly not credulity, since our faith and knowledge form a continuum corresponding to space-time, although in reverse order. Corresponding with these, is a spiritual light-physical light continuum, less bizarre seeming now that photons, I believe, have been discovered to carry information. I can't cite the passages just now, but the Psalms are very instructive concerning teleology. But to revert to the differing nature of the demands of faith, both then and now. In Christ's day, it was the according of loyalty to Christ in the teeth of the very malevolent opposition of the powerful religio-political authorities in that theocratic society, who had threatened to ban people listening to Jesus' preaching, from attendance at the synagogue. Now, we're only beginning to get back the demands of that kind of faith, though this time in the teeth of opposition by the leaders of an actually secular society, and increasingly formally so. But it is such a vast subject that I've barely skimmed the tip of the tip of the tip, etc of the questions you raised. Well, I do believe the insights of Max Planck, the discoverer of quantum physics, when he remarked: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." "Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve." And Planck's younger confrere, Niels Bohr, when he commented: "We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections." But it's not that he was airy-fairy about it, of course: "Physics is to be regarded not so much as the study of something a priori given, but rather as the development of methods of ordering and surveying human experience. In this respect our task must be to account for such experience in a manner independent of individual subjective judgement and therefore objective in the sense that it can be unambiguously communicated in ordinary human language." "Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems." "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature..." "Two sorts of truth: profound truths ?recognized by the fact that the opposite is also a profound truth,? in contrast to trivialities where opposites are obviously absurd." "Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question." Can you imagine a materialist speaking in that vein? Least of all with their still much-touted 'promissory note'. 'One day my son, a comprehensive knowledge of this whole universe will be yours. If not yours, some of our descendants."Axel_{June 17, 2012
June
06
Jun
17
17
2012
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Sorry, screwed up the blockquotes again. Sigh.Jerad_{June 17, 2012
June
06
Jun
17
17
2012
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Joe,
OTOH people like Nick and Jerad have absolutely no idea how atoms could have “just formed”…
I assume they came about because of some underlying principles that define the way the universe works. And, to be fair, you don't really know how they formed either. You postulate a creator/designer for which there is no independent physical evidence and who would have to be much more complex and complicated than the issue you're evoking 'him' to solve. Axel,
Truly Jerad, you must be one of the most hapless souls on the planet, if you hadn’t noticed that every functional thing in the room you are sitting in was designed! It’s called evidence. In a court of law, not even “utterly, utterly compelling evidence”, but “BINDING EVIDENCE”</blockquote. All the inanimate objects, absolutely. Things can can not replicate with modification on their own.
And as if that were not enough, you and your equally hapless fellow-believers seek to challenge ID with the notion that ultimately the universe is utterly unintelligible, other than as a product of random chance!
Not at all. There are laws of physics and chemistry which dictate how matter and energy act and react. And more laws to be discovered. I believe the universe is able to be understood which means much of it can be defined and codified. But I don't mind admitting temporary ignorance in some areas.
However, nothing produces nothing. Even random chance has to relate to something to have ANY kind of meaning. And the very word, ‘random’ implies ‘unintelligent’, ‘unpurposeful’, ‘undesigned’, so how does such infinite stupidity arrive at the construction of a universe of such staggering subtlety, complexity and outright imponderable mystery qua paradoxes? Paradoxes, by the way are, by definition, insoluble by, indeed repugnant to, logic.
I believe some things occur randomly but not everything. It's not the same as infinite stupidity or undirected by natural laws. We figured out a way around Zeno's Paradox, there are stranger and curiouser things in the universe than that which can be understood by your logic. Sometimes we just have to spend more time looking and asking questions. Many scientists I know prefer the challenge of not-knowing, it gives them something to work on!
At least IDers understand the limitations of our analytical intelligence, and YOU people have the gall to incorporate the great paradoxical insights made by the great paradigm-changing IDers, such as Planck, Bohr, Einstein and Godel, yet deny that their insights are imponderable paradoxes; but, rather, the great god, REASON, will one day (my son) be able to explain it all. You and your present-day gurus are myrmidons, hewers of wood and drawers of water, in comparison with the great paradigm-changers.
It's true, we can't all be Planck or Bohr. But I believe their scientific insights have been incorporated into our current models. I don't know if we'll every figure everything out but it's the job of the scientists to try!! Otherwise . . . what is there to do? What paradoxes are you referring to?
All you can do, when challenged is scoff. What great insights have you provided? String theory? Multiverses? Abiogensis? You have no trouble believing the impossible, it’s the improbable you can’t countenance.
I'm trying hard not to scoff, I'm trying to understand. I'm not an expert in any of those things (and, personally, I'm not a big fan of the 'mutiverse') but there are those who are, as much as you can be. I think many things in the history of the universe are incredibly improbable: the origin of life on earth, the formation of the first cell, me being here, lots of improbables.
Are these extraordinary random chances supposed to be what SUSTAINS the universe as well? What about before time began? Was randomm chance the Creator of the Big Bang? Do you know the nature of the Singularity that originated the Big Bang? The reference frame proper to photons is clearly not space-time, so how is that you presume to espouse materialism as your metaphysical, when we know so little about the universe and its matrix?
I don't think random chance instigated the big bang, I don't think any one does think that. I don't understand the nature of the singularity, do you? I don't think I ever purposely espoused materialism . . . didn't mean to anyway. I have tried, to the best of my ability to answer questions that I've been asked. We don't have to agree but I'd like to find out how you see the working of the universe. I gather you're not a deist. Do you think the universe requires a guiding hand at all times or just at certain moments? Is there a purpose to the universe? (Obviously I don't think there is but I'm betting you do.) What is that purpose? Assuming you think there is one how do you know what it is? These are the kinds of questions I think it would be fair for you to ask me so I hope you're not offended me asking you.
Jerad_{June 17, 2012
June
06
Jun
17
17
2012
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

O foolishness, they name is Jerad! Truly Jerad, you must be one of the most hapless souls on the planet, if you hadn't noticed that every functional thing in the room you are sitting in was designed! It's called evidence. In a court of law, not even "utterly, utterly compelling evidence", but "BINDING EVIDENCE". And as if that were not enough, you and your equally hapless fellow-believers seek to challenge ID with the notion that ultimately the universe is utterly unintelligible, other than as a product of random chance! However, nothing produces nothing. Even random chance has to relate to something to have ANY kind of meaning. And the very word, 'random' implies 'unintelligent', 'unpurposeful', 'undesigned', so how does such infinite stupidity arrive at the construction of a universe of such staggering subtlety, complexity and outright imponderable mystery qua paradoxes? Paradoxes, by the way are, by definition, insoluble by, indeed repugnant to, logic. At least IDers understand the limitations of our analytical intelligence, and YOU people have the gall to incorporate the great paradoxical insights made by the great paradigm-changing IDers, such as Planck, Bohr, Einstein and Godel, yet deny that their insights are imponderable paradoxes; but, rather, the great god, REASON, will one day (my son) be able to explain it all. You and your present-day gurus are myrmidons, hewers of wood and drawers of water, in comparison with the great paradigm-changers. All you can do, when challenged is scoff. What great insights have you provided? String theory? Multiverses? Abiogensis? You have no trouble believing the impossible, it's the improbable you can't countenance. Are these extraordinary random chances supposed to be what SUSTAINS the universe as well? What about before time began? Was randomm chance the Creator of the Big Bang? Do you know the nature of the Singularity that originated the Big Bang? The reference frame proper to photons is clearly not space-time, so how is that you presume to espouse materialism as your metaphysical, when we know so little about the universe and its matrix?Axel_{June 17, 2012
June
06
Jun
17
17
2012
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

"Uh-oh, you’ve proved atoms couldn’t come about through biological evolution. You’ve really got us now…" If only it were a joke, Nicholas. Do you always try to gloss over your incomprehension of the insights of, arguably, the greatest paradigm-changers in the history of science? Just have a stab at it, eh? How could atoms have "just formed". This time without the verbal 'smiley'. What a sorry shower!Axel_{June 17, 2012
June
06
Jun
17
17
2012
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

"Uh-oh, you’ve proved atoms couldn’t come about through biological evolution. You’ve really got us now…" If only it were a joke, Nicholas. Do you always try to gloss over your incomprehension of the insights of, arguably, the greatest paradigm-changers in the history of science? Just have a stab at it, eh? How could atoms have "just formed". This time without the verbal 'smiley'.Axel_{June 17, 2012
June
06
Jun
17
17
2012
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

The great scientist Max Planck said the following during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech:
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."
OTOH people like Nick and Jerad have absolutely no idea how atoms could have "just formed"...Joe_{June 17, 2012
June
06
Jun
17
17
2012
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

Uh-oh, you've proved atoms couldn't come about through biological evolution. You've really got us now...NickMatzke_UD_{June 15, 2012
June
06
Jun
15
15
2012
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

You gotta admit the "gosh it's all very complicated and hard to understand how it came about, it must have been designed" is NOT a scientific argument. And, where do you go from there? Once you've decided atoms are designed then what? I mean apart from what particle physics is already doing. Aside from the fact that I'm not sure the analogy really works. Atoms are more like building blocks than machines. They don't really process input or do work. They can absorb energy and then emit it but so can a rock. they can be split into smaller pieces like a rock. They can form molecules/structures following certain laws/parameters. Are they machines??Jerad_{June 15, 2012
June
06
Jun
15
15
2012
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply