Richard Dawkins endorses intelligent design........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rgtN0pCMQ
Go Ben…!

So if somewhere, sometime, somehow, another intelligent society arose, deep in the history of the universe (but that intelligent species, itself, arose by Darwinian evolutionary means) and seeded other parts of the universe for new organisms to grow and evolve, then that would be proof of some benevolent Intelligent Designer (who BTW, by your line of thinking, still pops in, from time to time, on Earth over the eons, to install new species of creatures)?
Ben has his audience, just as a department store Santa, has an audience of rapt believers.

So if somewhere, sometime, somehow, another intelligent society arose, deep in the history of the universe (but that intelligent species, itself, arose by Darwinian evolutionary means) and seeded other parts of the universe for new organisms to grow and evolve, then that would be proof of some benevolent Intelligent Designer (who BTW, by your line of thinking, still pops in, from time to time, on Earth over the eons, to install new species of creatures)? Ben has his audience, just as a department store Santa, has an audience of rapt believers.
The fact is that Dawkins when he postulates that thought, is only looking backwards, to the dead past. Real scientist are unraveling the DNA code as we sit and they are the true scientist, that are curing diseases by tinkering with the genetic code, and in fact producing better and new life forms as they go. Thus we need to make models of the people who strive for a better future, instead of blindly insult as Dawkins seems to be preoccupied with doing.

See the video here]
Richard Dawkins - Now Praise Intelligent Design
Go, Richard, go!
:lol:

The fact is that Dawkins when he postulates that thought, is only looking backwards, to the dead past. Real scientist are unraveling the DNA code as we sit and they are the true scientist, that are curing diseases by tinkering with the genetic code, and in fact producing better and new life forms as they go. Thus we need to make models of the people who strive for a better future, instead of blindly insult as Dawkins seems to be preoccupied with doing.
Do you also fault geologists for looking down, when they should be looking up to the stars?
The fact is that Dawkins when he postulates that thought, is only looking backwards, to the dead past. Real scientist are unraveling the DNA code as we sit and they are the true scientist, that are curing diseases by tinkering with the genetic code, and in fact producing better and new life forms as they go. Thus we need to make models of the people who strive for a better future, instead of blindly insult as Dawkins seems to be preoccupied with doing.
Do you also fault geologists for looking down, when they should be looking up to the stars? But astronomers are looking at the past instead of creating new life forms for the future!
..But astronomers are looking at the past instead of creating new life forms for the future!
Well, those who don't recognize the mistakes of the Big Bang, are doomed to repeat them in the ever-recycling universes of the ribbon of time. But hell, let's just wing it and hope for the best in our grand and god-like future. (Dammit. My extraordinary empathic skills have lead me to start thinking like Coral.)
..But astronomers are looking at the past instead of creating new life forms for the future!
Well, those who don't recognize the mistakes of the Big Bang, are doomed to repeat them in the ever-recycling universes of the ribbon of time. But hell, let's just wing it and hope for the best in our grand and god-like future. That's right. No matter where you look, it is always the past. It takes a few minutes for the light from the sun to get here, and the earth's atmosphere bends the light so we see the sun even when it is already below the horizon, and as we look to the furthest reaches of space, we see the history of ourselves in all directions. We are but a ship in the middle of the ocean of time and all we can see is the edge. We don't know what came before because the light from then has not had time to reach us. We are just energy slowed to a quiet vibration. The universe is one and we are the imagination of ourselves.
... The universe is one and we are the imagination of ourselves.
That would make a good signature line. Who cares if only you, and I, and the occasional passing stoner, appreciates it?
  1. The universe (and all in it) is an infinite evolving process with no beginning or end.
  2. The one and only one universe was, is and will be, forever.
  3. With infinite time and evolution, anything can emerge and do.
  4. As such, there is no necessity for a “designer” or “design” per se.
  5. They are all anthropomorphic concepts.
    :coolsmile:
1. The universe (and all in it) is an infinite evolving process with no beginning or end. 2. The one and only one universe was, is and will be, forever. 3. With infinite time and evolution, anything can emerge and do. :coolsmile:
But this is not necessarily so from a cosmological point of view. We observe only one universe that certainly had some kind of beginning in the Big Bang. Any ideas of what came before the BB are pure speculation with no experimental or observational support whatsoever. It may well have an end, either a 'Big Crunch' - unlikely with Dark Energy accelerating it away, or a 'Big Rip' - unlikely with a constant equation of state parameter omega, or just a heat death after all stars exhaust their nuclear energy and cool down to Black Dwarfs or Black Holes - with no further evolving processes of any kind. With only a finite time available then unlikely events become problematic. In my lectures on astronomy and cosmology I give the following example: Re: A room full of monkeys tapping away randomly on typewriters eventually producing the works of Shakespeare. Fred Hoyle likened the spontaneous appearance of life from an 'organic soup' to the likelihood of a whirlwind going through a scrap yard and producing a Jumbo Jet in full working order. He estimated the odds to be somewhere between10 to the power 140 (10^140) and up to 10 to the 10,000 (10^10,000) to one. He then proposed that if the universe were infinite in size and infinitely old (his Continuous Creation model) then no matter how small the odds were it would have happened somewhere i.e. here on Earth or in nearby space (our neighbourhood of the galaxy). To show how small these odds are I took the smaller value, 10^140, and showed how these are the odds of a chimpanzee tapping out, not the works of Shakespeare, but only the first few words of the Bible, Genesis 1:1 :- "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth and the Earth was without form and void." (94 letters and spaces) With a keyboard of 26 letters and a space, no capitals and four punctuation keys (,.?!), 31 keys in all. The chance of typing that sentence once is 1 in 31^94 or, [taking logs, 1 in (94 x log(31) = 140 (roughly)] 1 in 10^140. How likely is it that a chimpanzee can type that simple sentence on a simplified typewriter? To make it easy we are going to do it on a computer. In fact the computer will churn out the whole sentence in a line of 94 characters taken at random from our simplified keyboard. To speed things up, to the rate of simple biochemical reactions, it will churn out such a random line of characters 100,000 times per second. (10^5 per sec.). Now there are ~30,000,000 (3 x 10^7) seconds in a year and 14,000,000,000 (1.4 x 10^10) years in the age of the universe. So a single computer would have churned out about 5 x 10^22, call it 10^23, lines since the beginning of time! Now there are about 10^80 atomic particles in the entire observable universe. Let each one be such a computer (to simulate atoms undergoing random chemical/biological reactions) Then with every atom in the whole universe being such a computer. There would have been since the universe began10^23 x 10^80 = 10^103 lines of 94 characters printed out, a short fall of a factor of 10^37 before one computer printed out the first sentence of the Bible correctly. Of course every other 94 character sentence would also have been printed out, but to get them, and the one we want - representing the first living organism - we would have to wait 10^37 or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the present age of the universe until just one of those computers printed out the correct sentence just once. No wonder it is so hard to choose just six numbers in the British National Lottery each week! Just a thought while 'Climbing Mount Improbable'.
... Re: A room full of monkeys tapping away randomly on typewriters eventually producing the works of Shakespeare...
I suggest that we only allow the chimps who most often produce an approximate Shakespearean word/sentence/chapter to reproduce, and get rid of the other chimps. Then over enough generations, we might have chimps (or something that evolved from the original Chimps) that can write Shakespeare, before the sun burns the Earth to dust.
I suggest that we only allow the chimps who most often produce an approximate Shakespearean word/sentence/chapter to reproduce, and get rid of the other chimps. Then over enough generations, we might have chimps (or something that evolved from the original Chimps) that can write Shakespeare, before the sun burns the Earth to dust.
First find your chimps....

The first problem is to reduce the 10^140 improbability of ‘Mount Improbable’.
As you suggest Tim evolutionary processes could have taken a part.
Self-replicating molecules that gradually become more complex are the normal idea as Richard Dawkins suggested in the video clip above. We might know more if we find such molecules on the proto-Earth that is Titan, the largest planet sized moon of Saturn.
Water is a problem. biological molecules are water solvent, however it tends to cause complex molecules to dissolve and break up. Hence the Earth’s tides are thought to have been important, with low tide, possibly on the exposed surface of clays with large surface areas, giving the opportunity for such complex molecules to develop.
As far as the ‘Intelligent Designer’ being an extra terrestrial intelligence deliberately seeding the Earth with life is concerned, as also suggested as a possibility by Richard, and interestingly this is the subject of an article in the present edition of New Scientist Is the answer to life, the universe and everything 37?], it seems that the question has only been put back a stage. How did that ETI originate and evolve?
Of course the seeding could have been accidental by panspermia].
In the latter two cases with an infinite or ‘almost infinite’ universe there would be 10^37 times the volume of the observable universe of completely sterile galaxies, stars and planets and one small pocket where life unreasonably began. That small pocket could be the Earth or, if extra-terrestrial, our part of our galaxy.
One fact to be taken into account is that it seems that as soon as (in geological terms) the Earth became suitable for life then it began - perhaps brought here by panspermia.
Of course these explanations for the occurrence of unlikely life requires the existence of vast regions of universe beyond our observable particle horizon limit.
On the other hand the beginning of life could be more probable that Fred Hoyle estimated it to be…

But this is not necessarily so from a cosmological point of view.
From this article here]
This “counting" or “measure" ambiguity afflicts infinite systems terribly and creates a nightmare in cosmology. If postinflationary regions can have different properties, and each possible set of properties is realized in an infinite number of such regions, there is a twofold problem. First, there is no unique prediction, from this fundamental theory, for what we can observe. This is a letdown but not fatal, since we would still hope to make probabilistic predictions. Yet the measure ambiguity suggests that the relative probabilities themselves depend on the particular measure we choose and there is no compelling reason to believe any one given measure. This measure problem has spawned a large amount of recent work in inflationary cosmology, and although there has been progress, it’s not clear that the progress is toward any particular resolution.
And:
Should we embrace the idea that our world is truly infinite, or should we look for some way to tame and regulate this infinity in our theories? It is difficult to say. What seems clear, however, is that infinity can no longer be safely ignored: beautifully constructed, empirically supported, self-consistent theories have brought infinity from idle curiosity to central player in contemporary cosmology.
Bold added by me. As such, an infinite static matter universe with no beginning or end is conceivable and viable.
We observe only one universe that certainly had some kind of beginning in the Big Bang. Any ideas of what came before the BB are pure speculation with no experimental or observational support whatsoever.
We observe only one universe and unjustifiably assume that it must have a beginning (the Big Bang [BB]) with a singularity which is ludicrous, because of its infinite values. Why is it so? From the wiki here]
According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics break down in describing the Big Bang, but in general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths.
Thus, the BB and a singularity are highly problematic. Are we constrained to assume origins because of anthropomorphism? :cheese: OTOH, what if there was no BB at all i.e. the universe is infinite with no beginning or end with a static matter universe and an expanding luminous world? From this paper here] From the abstract:
The dichotomous cosmology is an alternative to the expanding Universe theory, and consists of a static matter Universe, where cosmological redshifts are explained by a tired-light model with an expanding luminous world. In this model the Hubble constant is also the photon energy decay rate, and the luminous world is expanding at a constant rate as in de Sitter cosmology for an empty Universe. The present model explains both the luminosity distance versus redshift relationship of supernovae Ia, and ageing of spectra observed with the stretching of supernovae light curves. Furthermore, it is consistent with a radiation energy density factor (1 + z)4 inferred from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
Does the above dichotomous cosmology make more sense versus the BB, a singularity and the expanding universe theory?

The term “Intelligent Design” is a misleading, IMO, because it logically leads to the premise of a “Designer”, which is a dead end because it begs the question of who created the Designer into infinity.
I propose that a more correct term would be, “Design Intelligence”, because it logically leads to the premise of a “Potential”, an inherent latent ability or excellence which is (in)directly causal to Change.
Fundamentally I see the fabric of universe as a conditionally permissive medium, with certain mathematical boundaries. This is the very definition of Potential, either as a latent ability or as causal force for change. I assume an Intelligent Designer would posses such qualities, alas another dead end.
Therefore, the Design (vectors, gravity, c, etc), emerging from the initial zero state of infinite energy into chaos, which produces a causal force, at all levels of expression, from pure potential, to pure energy, to matter, to behavior of matter.
The evolution of this sequence seems to follow certain mathematical rules in accordance to the existing potentials (probabilities). This may be called a form of inherent logic or pseudo-intelligenct process or function. .
But, just as a computer functions in a pseudo-intelligent way, so does the universe. This why I propose to change the paradigm “Intelligent Design” to “Desing Intelligence”. This proposal can be defended in all the sciences and simplifies the unsolvable problem of a sentient Designer.
David Bohm called it “Insight-Intelligence” as a logical metaphysical abstraction. I believe his scientific worldview has a certain elegance and clarity in the fundamentals of the creative process from zero state singularity with infinite potential to an eventual coherent system, the Explicate.

..But astronomers are looking at the past instead of creating new life forms for the future!
Well, those who don't recognize the mistakes of the Big Bang, are doomed to repeat them in the ever-recycling universes of the ribbon of time. But hell, let's just wing it and hope for the best in our grand and god-like future. That's right. No matter where you look, it is always the past. It takes a few minutes for the light from the sun to get here, and the earth's atmosphere bends the light so we see the sun even when it is already below the horizon, and as we look to the furthest reaches of space, we see the history of ourselves in all directions. We are but a ship in the middle of the ocean of time and all we can see is the edge. We don't know what came before because the light from then has not had time to reach us. We are just energy slowed to a quiet vibration. The universe is one and we are the imagination of ourselves. I like that also. I came up with a variation which: The universe is one and we are the expression of universal potential. As Bohm says that in the Potential implicatitions (probabilities) are formed, which he called the Implicate just before it becomes Explicate in our reality. A condition of potential must exist before any change can become a probability. Potential is the common denominator of all things, expressed or not.

kkwan I will answer your post in several parts.

But this is not necessarily so from a cosmological point of view.
From this article here]
This “counting" or “measure" ambiguity afflicts infinite systems terribly and creates a nightmare in cosmology. If postinflationary regions can have different properties, and each possible set of properties is realized in an infinite number of such regions, there is a twofold problem. First, there is no unique prediction, from this fundamental theory, for what we can observe. This is a letdown but not fatal, since we would still hope to make probabilistic predictions. Yet the measure ambiguity suggests that the relative probabilities themselves depend on the particular measure we choose and there is no compelling reason to believe any one given measure. This measure problem has spawned a large amount of recent work in inflationary cosmology, and although there has been progress, it’s not clear that the progress is toward any particular resolution.
This is not a debate about infinities, countable or otherwise. When we say the universe may be infinite we mean in the countable sense, just as the series of whole numbers, 1,2,3,4 etc. is countably infinite. It keeps going on and on, as before, without a boundary, without end. If the universe is flat or hyperbolic because its density parameter OMEGA is equal to or less than one then it is infinite in this sense. The latest PLANCK satellite results] are consistent (within error bars) with the universe being flat and infinite. However there are just still hints that it might be slightly larger than one indicating a finite universe, this would be an explanation for, "Despite the success of the standard LCDM model, this cosmology does not provide a good fit to the CMB power spectrum at low multipoles, as noted previously by the WMAP team." That is why I said it is not necessarily so.

kkwan, here is my second response to your post.

As such, an infinite static matter universe with no beginning or end is conceivable and viable. From this paper here] From the abstract:
The dichotomous cosmology is an alternative to the expanding Universe theory, and consists of a static matter Universe, where cosmological redshifts are explained by a tired-light model with an expanding luminous world. In this model the Hubble constant is also the photon energy decay rate, and the luminous world is expanding at a constant rate as in de Sitter cosmology for an empty Universe. The present model explains both the luminosity distance versus redshift relationship of supernovae Ia, and ageing of spectra observed with the stretching of supernovae light curves. Furthermore, it is consistent with a radiation energy density factor (1 + z)4 inferred from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
Does the above dichotomous cosmology make more sense versus the BB, a singularity and the expanding universe theory?
Unfortunately the tired light theory does not work, there is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The tired light theory cannot predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves. and having now read Heymann's .pdf paper I find no convincing explanation for it. Basically dichotomous cosmology is crackpottery, anyone can say they have built time dilation into their theory but you cannot. Time passes at the tautological rate of one second per second. In GR the proper time interval of the world-line is less in some cases because the world-line is shorter. This is because it has passed through a curved space-time. In order to better Einstein'd GR you first have to understand it. Heymann obviously does not. You also seem to dismiss the idea of a singularity because it leads to infinities, yet you happily talk about an infinite universe. If you can accept the one then you can accept the other. All that we can say about approaching the infinity of a singularity at the heart of a Black Hole for example, is that we don't know what happens there. Ignorance is no place to construct a theory - although I concede that many try to do so.
This is not a debate about infinities, countable or otherwise. When we say the universe may be infinite we mean in the countable sense, just as the series of whole numbers, 1,2,3,4 etc. is countably infinite. It keeps going on and on, as before, without a boundary, without end.
From the wiki on infinity here]
Infinity (symbol: ∞) is an abstract concept describing something without any limit and is relevant in a number of fields, predominantly mathematics and physics. In mathematics, "infinity" is often treated as if it were a number (i.e., it counts or measures things: "an infinite number of terms") but it is not the same sort of number as the real numbers.
Infinity is an abstract concept and not a countable number i.e. it is something without any limit. This is what an infinite universe is......without any limit in space and time.
If the universe is flat or hyperbolic because its density parameter OMEGA is equal to or less than one then it is infinite in this sense. The latest PLANCK satellite results] are consistent (within error bars) with the universe being flat and infinite. However there are just still hints that it might be slightly larger than one indicating a finite universe, this would be an explanation for, "Despite the success of the standard LCDM model, this cosmology does not provide a good fit to the CMB power spectrum at low multipoles, as noted previously by the WMAP team." That is why I said it is not necessarily so.
From this article in January 2014 here]
According to the BOSS researchers, who presented their work at the 223rd meeting of the American Astronomical Society this week, the findings strongly indicate that the universe is “extraordinarily flat" and that the universe is probably infinite, extending forever in space and time.