No Artists Found
No Albums Found
More Albums
Load All
No Tracks Found
Genre not found
Artist not found
Album not found
Search results not found
Song not found
Intelligent Design
Neil De Grasse Tyson Lyrics
We have lyrics for 'Intelligent Design' by these artists:
Kilo Kish Look at the fuss They'd have us inching up To rather catacly…
Nuclear Bubble Wrap A T-rex, it be strong and built But it can't masturbate Can'…
Rodney Crowell If I could have just one wish Maybe for an hour I…
Swing 无尽的天空真的于黑暗爆开的吗 奇妙的基因真的可演化到精英吗 分析这宇宙所有单单进化论不够 声色中千丝的万化出于祂大脑之下…
The New Amsterdams Any signs of proof yet to show We're content to be…
The Restarts Natural Selection or intelligent Design Argument's lost its …
The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos
Wg Williams
I am sure that Newton and the other great thinkers mentioned here understood the limits of the human mind as well as the method of Empiricism they used. Knowledge was and is far from being limited to this one method. The root problem in Empirical Science is the positing that consciousness/mind is mere by-product functioning of brain. Mathematics, reason and logic would be results of this mere by-product functioning of brain called “Mind”. If morality, self awareness, emotions and choice (freewill) are also mere results of Mind (the brain by-product) it would then seem to be just picking and choosing to trust logic over self-awareness or mathematics over morality and in the end become some form of “begging the question”.
The only real questions are, "is consciousness trustworthy to know reality and if so, is it also a necessary part of reality itself?" We have in fact only consciousness to rationalize consciousness. All rational inferences, testing models against experienced reality, conceptualizing models, logic and probability theories; arise from consciousness/mind and all of these listed don't and can't exist without consciousness. “Consciousness” or the “Mind” accounts for all reasoning with nothing left outside of this self-awareness that is able to encounter or reason reality otherwise.
Consciousness is the substrate of any possible claim to knowledge and thus the starting and ending point to posit a reality or any truth. Why would one limit themselves to posit empiricism (science's founding principle) as the only method of truth, which is also a product/idea of “Mind” but leads to a world-view that denies one's self, the objective reasoner, as no more than mere biochemical illusory as the result of it's assertions. Empiricism states that knowledge must be restricted to those objects which can be perceived by our senses. At the same time empiricism requires non-empirical foundational presuppositions and these presuppositions are not material themselves, they are metaphysical. Empiricism must assume mathematics, logic and human reason trustworthy; and that the Universe is rational and in line with a rational human consciousness/mind because these are not physical objects which can be perceived by any of our five senses. Mathematics, logic and reason originate and reside in the metaphysical consciousness, the mind. These metaphysical conceptual constructs can not be tested/falsified outside of themselves empirically thus are asserted as objective.
Empiricism alone is self-refuting. The theory that all knowledge is limited to what can be empirically known is itself, incapable of being known or demonstrated empirically. When adding the fact that empiricism can not answer for any trustworthy substrate for knowledge that is solely metaphysical (one's self, the objective reasoner); and the fact that the only substrate for claimed knowledge is “one's self, the objective reasoner”, shows empiricism as fallacious at it's core claim of being the only methodology for knowledge. Mind/consciousness is “one's self, the objective reasoner” and only possible source for any claim of knowledge to and of reality. Science may be able to explain what humans are but science can never inform us of who we are; one's self, the objective reasoner to and of reality.
C.S. Lewis describes the moral issue from within conscious beings reasoning like this;
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." ~C.S. Lewis
Are human observations objective and rational? Is the Universe rational? Because we can not escape our consciousness to test or falsify these question, they are assumed to be objective and rational. Every claim to knowledge originates and is filtered by consciousness and no knowledge exists outside of consciousness to prove otherwise. Calling one conscious experience "objective" over any other is fallacious; including logic over emotions or mathematics over morality. Logic and mathematics can not be falsified/tested outside of their own claims as being objective. Emotions, morality, freewill and self awareness are also emergent phenomena of consciousness. Why posit logic, reason and mathematics as trustworthy and objective and the first group not? The second group can not be validated or falsified outside of their own assertions; so what are you appealing to in order to claim the first list as mere biochemical illusory but value the second list as trustworthy and objective?
I don't deny the practical use of science just as I don't deny the practical use of objective moral truth in the justice system and laws. I simply appeal to morals being objective as one would claim mathematics to be objective as in 2+2=4. One first has to assume consciousness is rational and that the universe and experience holds these same rational limitations. Is truth in morality of less value than logic, or less true? Is the life of a psychopath with a 140 IQ but without any empathy of more value than the life a kind man with just a 60 IQ?
Freewill to choose ill-moral behavior or even prefer ill-moral behavior may seem to not be objective but once the ill-behaved is treated "badly" they will always contests this as cruel or wrong. Anyone as the victim of ill-moral actions will always desire to escape said ill-moral actions placed on them. This seems to lead to moral objectiveness. Many people may claim to be pro-abortion but if given the “choice” that they themselves stand in as the aborted, only the suicidal would volunteer. No one that values “Choice” would want to be aborted themselves other than the suicidal. The question then would be, not if abortion is moral but is suicide moral. This leaves no doubt about the question that abortion is ill-moral; meaning that the normal person that is pro-abortion would not want to be aborted themselves unless suicidal. Suicide is already against the law, so why is suicide against the law but abortion not?
I don't deny reason, logic or mathematics as objective, I just understand the assumptions one must make to assert they are "objective" and apply the same to all results of un-testable consciousness. The error is with someone asserting objectiveness in some results of consciousness and subjectiveness in others without outside "proof". These others would include self-awareness, emotions, moral conviction and freewill. Consciousness is the Only accountable source for all of the above and it does not favor any one of these above the other!
david77james
@Tesla Nick - says: DNA evidence alone proves evolution beyond reasonable doubt. Your refusal to accept the evidence is your issue, not mine." for the second time.
What freakin evidence, oh brilliant one? You hold yourself above the 15% most brilliant geniuses of the world, and the 40% of scientists?
Your problem is that you lie profusely by offering generalities based on "quips that your fellow liars put forth", when AGAIN, you cannot give any specifics.
I whipped it baby kakes. I gave you enough basic information to ponder for a month, and you just repeat generalities to me, like kids do, and you've never ascended beyond that level.
Thanks Pinocchio, it's always fun kicking butt w/ oblivious folks like you, who demand to hang onto dishonesty to rule their lives.
.
david77james
@Tesla Nick - " 'So, Abiogenesis is down the toilet.' Because you said so ? It's doesn't work like that."
Likely MOST among 15% of the world's most brilliant geniuses & about 40% of all scientists from all walks, have done enough due diligence "Critical Analysis" (CA) of known scientific facts, which allowed them to conclude that divine creation is an absolute. These are your opposition.
10s of 1,000s of scientists over the centuries have applied CA to the known basics of Abiogenesis hypotheses, and most of these concluded creation is an absolute. Some are honest, some are not.
Since the modern day discovery of the DNA molecule, no scientist has a valid excuse for even suspecting that life was initiated by some aimless natural happenstance occurrence.
Why? The existence of DNA's millions of bits of hyper complex coded information & instructions inside every cell is the backbone of all life on earth, and a literal miracle to everyone who looks at its product, under scope.
Over 2/3 of scientists & 85% of the world's most brilliant geniuses ignore CA of KNOWN facts. Please watch Harvard's animated depiction of what takes place inside ONE eukaryotic cell. It's only 8 min long & non narrated version here gives you little music to help you watch the results of DNA instructions being doled out to EACH of thousands of working components that perform "work" for the cell to live, thrive, & reproduce.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_zD3NxSsD8
We'll talk if you do your 8 min analysis. How much of these trillions of bits of purposeful, necessary activity, among thousands of complex motorized components inside ONE cell do you think "evolved" from matter, gradually.
Don't fight against your mind, regarding the phenomena that you see. Consider the lack of reality of happenstance being the "cause", and just be honest.
.
Artildawn - M.H.Cannon
Some people do not seem to understand that a law, in scientific terms, is an description of something that is already occurring in nature. It builds upon observable data to develop an understand that can be used to make observable predictions. It is not a rule that is created for the universe to follow.
The term theory seems to confuse many as well. It is very simply an explanation of a process based upon observable evidence at any given time. Theories can be modified, updated, or outright rejected as new evidence becomes available. No theory can be said to 100% accurate since it is only as accurate at the evidence available allows. There does have to be a preponderance of evidence to support any theory though. Insufficient evidence may lead to a hypothesis or conjecture, but not theory nor a law.
This is my understanding at any rate.
Carlos Diaz
@DeltaXY special relativity and Newton's theory both fail to explain how the universe maintains it's integrity over the massive distance which have been calculated and so in order to properly invoke gravity, dark matter/dark energy must be conceded. In your response to my observation of a contradiction you describe the very contradiction you are dismissing. Tell me, what about dark energy/dark matter is observable and or repeatable? It is an escape mechanism to avoid the utter absurdity of the stars ability to maintain the very same formations for all of recorded human history while simultaneously moving at unimaginably and immeasurable speeds at inconceivably far distances from each other.
DeltaXY
@Carlos Diaz there's no contradiction. For instance special relativity does not contradict Newton's theory. It's just more accurate and describe more things.
And words do have meaning, whether we like them or not. In science, when you say "theory", you're not describing someone's supposition or conjecture. You're using that word when you speak of something that has been demonstrably proven (by repeated experiments) to work. If you don't like that the word theory is also used for this, fine: use another one. But the common meaning of theory is NOT the one meant in science.
And that makes string/brane theory a wrong label. It should be called string/brane idea , because this one has not been proven to work yet.
Carlos Diaz
You don't seem to be able to think rationally. You allow people to conjure up new definitions which contradict their original meanings. A law is a law and a theory is not a law nor is it a fact. The only way to change the meaning of the terms is through deception. You sir are a victim of wizardry. A theory is a fact....a law is not a law...taxation is legal....usury is not punishable by death! Evil soulless lives matter! Anyhow, you get the point...right? Oh, wait nvm...you're a retarded pos who parrots nonsense! Go vote, see if God cares about how precisely you are able to parrot the sorcerers. Nah fam, laws are laws.
Michael
I don't understand the issue... we should be teaching ONLY WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW, right up to the limit of what we know, so the next generation can go from there, and teach their kids up to THAT limit!! There shouldn't be any reason to fill the gap with A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G!! Much less some magic guy in the sky that will make you feel better, if you "just believe hard enough"!! Believe what you believe... I couldn't care less, but that is your PERSONAL business, and should NOT BE FORCED into the rest of the children in your child's classroom!!
There... issue solved!!
david77james
Michael- That would all be fine, if children would NOT BE FORCED to learn what has NOT been & can NOT be proven, i.e. evolution of life from matter & evolution of species from common ancestor, which is ALL high speculation, NOT fact.
spianny
Amen brother 👌😊🤣
Michael
Yeah... I guess I'll have to work on that!! Hahaha It seems when you make rational comments on this website, you offend a great number of people!!
Box of Cox
Your problem is you're thinking much too rationally for 70 - 90% of all Americans.
Danny Gravdahl
I absolutely love listening to this man.