Evolution VS Intelligent Design

[doG]

you know this is annoying, why couldn't a "greater entity" have worked through evolution?

 

And where did this greater entity come from? Was it designed too?

[Radical Edward]

you know this is annoying, why couldn't a "greater entity" have worked through evolution?

 

well in principle it could have done, just like we use evolution to make things from aircraft wings to circuits and antenna. However the whole exercise makes an intelligent designer a bit redundant when we're talking about the creation and evolution of life, since the algorithm variables would never generate anything with any function other than to carry on reproducing (unlike say an antenna, where the selection criteria are tweaked to produce better antenna)

[foodchain]

you know this is annoying, why couldn't a "greater entity" have worked through evolution?

 

I don’t think science will tell you its proved that some supernatural whatever does or does not exist, but that’s sort of beyond the point. Proponents of ID seem to already hold on to some proposed factual reality that they would impose that scientifically has no backing, they would even like to have this put along side say basic science curriculum in public education. To me I think that is what the problem comes down to.

 

If you want to know personally I don’t care whatever anyone wants to believe, but if science has proven anything its that it can reach lets say a factual representation of something, so if we want to teach science, we as a culture I would suggest should stick to teaching what is science. To add in ID in a class such as biology that covers evolution is sort of silly, simply because one it has no scientific standing that I know of and two you really could put anything you want there, such as the FSM.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Edited June 14, 2008 by foodchain
added one word

[iNow]

I just checked the thread, and it turns out that, Yes, yes I DID already share this image.

 

 

 

[Mr Skeptic]

There's no reason why evolution is incompatible with intelligent design. Keep in mind that us intelligent people sometimes use evolutionary algorithms to design stuff (mostly when we don't know what we're doing, cause it works anyways). In that sense, using evolutionary algorithms to design life would be a good design strategy if life is intended to continuously adapt/evolve. Or we could still be "unfinished", with our universe being the design parameters for the evolutionary algorithm.

 

In any case, the major problem with intelligent design is that it is not incompatible with anything.

[mooeypoo]

There's no reason why evolution is incompatible with intelligent design. Keep in mind that us intelligent people sometimes use evolutionary algorithms to design stuff (mostly when we don't know what we're doing, cause it works anyways). In that sense, using evolutionary algorithms to design life would be a good design strategy if life is intended to continuously adapt/evolve. Or we could still be "unfinished", with our universe being the design parameters for the evolutionary algorithm.

I disagree.

 

There's no reason why evolution is incompatible with the idea of a higher intelligence, but it is definately incompatible with Intelligent Design the way its proponents define it.

 

Intelligent Design states all species were specifically designed and created ALMOST-AS-IS by a higherpower, some sort of designer. That is directly in contradiction to the theory of Evolution that shows speciation by natural selection, slowly.

 

If you saw the movie iNow posted, they give a great graphical representation for the difference: Intelligent Design shows species as "lines" popping out of nowhere. Evolutions has these "lines" connected to a tree.

 

The theories are absolutely incompatible. Don't forget there's a difference between a belief in god or creator (that can take many shapes, from a personal-god to deism to a lot of other variations) and the theory of Intelligent Design.

 

Intelligent Design is a formed theory (false one, but formed) - it's not equal to the belief in an Intelligent Designer.. there are more elements to ID, such as the statement that all species were specifically designed (hence created as is, hence no evolution, hence absolutely in contradiction of it).

 

In any case, the major problem with intelligent design is that it is not incompatible with anything.

Indeed.

 

Unlike the belief in a creator-god, which may be compatible with science (stetching it, in my opinion, but regardless), and is just impossible to prove or disprove.

 

~moo

[iNow]

Interesting video at the following:

 

 

 

 

If you enjoyed that, this other one might be good for you as well:

 

Edited June 15, 2008 by iNow

[foodchain]

There's no reason why evolution is incompatible with intelligent design. Keep in mind that us intelligent people sometimes use evolutionary algorithms to design stuff (mostly when we don't know what we're doing, cause it works anyways). In that sense, using evolutionary algorithms to design life would be a good design strategy if life is intended to continuously adapt/evolve. Or we could still be "unfinished", with our universe being the design parameters for the evolutionary algorithm.

 

In any case, the major problem with intelligent design is that it is not incompatible with anything.

 

Then try this out.

 

I have a speculation that the origin of life ties into fundamental forces at play in nature. In particular QM. I think for instance the reality of how important thermodynamics is to say chemistry can be used by decoherence and einselection. I think such could be used in context with the earth as a system evolving in time in say the solar system or how far out you would like to go. I think its via changes in say radiation operating on matter within the context of a system continually attempting to reach the local minimum that first brought along life in the form of say fixers if you want. I think its this the generated the first biological systems and that subsequent evolution of a causality of such. basically that you got clumps of matter that took on a certain chemical/physical form to process energy and via variation in this energy you found variation being selected for in the systems themselves, or mutation.

 

so why cannot my speculation be taught alongside say ID, it has just as much proof really scientifically speaking, in fact what really separates the two? I mean what constitutes something of a true scientific reality that should be taught alongside evolution as a different possibility scientifically and what standards would define such? Personally I think I have more proof in the fact my speculation predicts absolute zero type of conditions of an environment would never ever spawn life.

 

In fact I think a year of absolute zero would wipe out all life on earth if the earth was to move to such a state.

 

I am still waiting for glorious ID to produce any actual science past speculation like I have posted above that cannot predict anything or have any sort of empirical or logical support.

[omnimutant]

That said, where did the first designer come from?

It evolved!

(from our need to be controlled and feel significant in this lonely world)

 

Actually Intelligent Design (As Named) stems from a scam propagated by some Religious Zealots working with a publisher to try and sneak Christianity into Public Schools, under the guise of a new Scientific Theory. There is a Great episode of the PBS show Front Line that goes into extreme detail with Lots of hard evidence proving the above fact. It even mentions how in the first printing they messed up and missed editing out some key references to God by name and other such mistakes. The second printing quickly fixed these errors but still managed to leave in other blatant Theological references.

 

"Intelligent Design" in any other form then the one mentioned above is just creationism with a fancy name.

Edited June 16, 2008 by omnimutant

[halogirl]

But that's not all ID is content to suggest. It *is* possible that a "greater entity" which is unobservable (by any means we know of) used the physical laws (no omnipotence, please) and the process of evolution to populate Earth with its current biodiversity over billions of years. Possible, but not probable.

 

ID says evolution and the observation and experimentation that makes it one of the most sound theories available is flawed. ID is an attempt to teach religion in public school science classes. THAT is why you are being annoyed with all these objections over Intelligent Design, not because there can be no "greater entity".

 

i think you have me confused, i was annoyed the arguments that say that it can be only one or the other. honestly i do believe only in evolution, but too many people claim that a greater entity simply placed us here.

 

also if there were a greater entity why shouldn't it be probable that it used evolution as an effective way to develop useful organisms.?

[Phi for All]

i think you have me confused, i was annoyed the arguments that say that it can be only one or the other.

Rigid thinking has it's place, but not where faith and beliefs are concerned.

honestly i do believe only in evolution, but too many people claim that a greater entity simply placed us here.

I think those people make some mistakes (here are two):

1) they believe the Bible is inerrant and should be taken literally, and

2) they place magical properties on the idea of omnipotence.

 

The Bible does err in some places, so the whole can't be inerrant. And omnipotence could mean that a higher power uses the physics of the universe in ways that make It seem all-powerful. I still don't understand why a god would deliberately mislead us by placing evidence of a very ancient Earth when It just poofed the planet into existence 6000 years ago. It works in mysterious ways, is what I'm told.

 

also if there were a greater entity why shouldn't it be probable that it used evolution as an effective way to develop useful organisms.?

When the probability of something is very low, we say it's possible but not probable. However, when you presuppose that there is a greater entity, the probability that It uses evolution is "probably" better than 99%.

[john5746]

It was mentioned in another thread that you have id, which is separate from the politically charged ID. To avoid confusion, I think this id should be changed to TE - Tinkering Entity. That removes all claims from this idea, which is what really is going on.

[Phi for All]

It was mentioned in another thread that you have id, which is separate from the politically charged ID. To avoid confusion, I think this id should be changed to TE - Tinkering Entity. That removes all claims from this idea, which is what really is going on.

But isn't id just Deism?

 

I think any attempt to separate id from ID would only aid ID. They are all about trying to invent a controversy so they can use their favorite tag, "Since there's a controversy, why not teach both?"

[Reaper]

I wouldn't consider id deism actually. ID is very specific in what exactly it proposes, if nothing else. ID proposes that life must have had an "intelligent" *cough*supernatural*cough* creator because it is complex, and that they all came into existence separately, meaning that all creatures are not related to each other. It's basically just one giant logical fallacy, and just plain annoying.

 

Deism on the other hand just proposes that God exists, and that He does not interfere with the normal operation of the Universe, and certainly not with human affairs. He may or may not have created the Universe.

[john5746]

But isn't id just Deism?

 

maybe, from a god standpoint. But, we can generalize it even further to an intelligent alien - or a donkey farting. I think it was lucaspa who argued the design did not need to be smart or good. From that standpoint, it could be a being even less intelligent than humans.

 

I think any attempt to separate id from ID would only aid ID. They are all about trying to invent a controversy so they can use their favorite tag, "Since there's a controversy, why not teach both?"

 

I agree, especially in regards to science. As far as philosophy or religion is concerned, people can circle it in their minds forever for all I care.

[Phi for All]

I wouldn't consider id deism actually. ID is very specific in what exactly it proposes, if nothing else.

I was making the distinction john5746 mentioned regarding id (or TE) and ID. Deism was the closest term I could think of for what he proposed, a being that might have designed the universe but doesn't sweat the petty stuff, and couldn't care less about petting the sweaty stuff.

[iNow]

I swear, the mental gymnastics which must be performed in order to make id seem even slightly plausible are rather intense.

[dichotomy]

Of course there exists an intelligent designer, he's designed the perfect puzzle for us to solve: his existence....got ya!

 

 

Why is there a need for a deity?

Maybe because we have only had a contemporary neo-cortex for a relatively short time. The neo-cortex’s unquenchable thirst for answers has led it to the easy short cut of the deity solution, in order of course, to answers all the impossible and seemingly impossible questions with the ever handy - (Insert your preferred deity or supernatural being here) did it. The neo-cortex has been wrong on countless occasions when assuming mystical reasons for unknown physical phenomena. The neo-cortex needs to learn that not knowing some things is okay, if only to overcome its unproven and hazardous assumptions.

 

 

Fire is not a spirit

The earth is not flat

Witches can’t cast evil spells

A rabbit’s foot won’t give you good luck

Horoscopes can't tell your future

 

 

I voted no. I think if anything is viable it is that the universe was created unconsciously: no conscious intelligence was involved, just unconscious energy and matter bumping around in the dark and eventually coming up with different possibilities. So, possibly energy and matter are unconscious in the same way as we are when we are dead energy and matter. And this implies that there is some basic form of “know how” going on. Unconscious know how, like our heart automatically beating when we are in deep sleep.

Edited June 17, 2008 by dichotomy

[halogirl]

to: dichotomy

 

Why is there a need for a deity?

 

i think alot of people want there to be a deity, because they don't like the idea that we control our actions.

what people really want is an excuse to undermine other people, and the thought of being responsible for our actions scares people. thus we want someone to blame, not only that but evolution hurts peoples feelings of superiority to others, because its saying that we just happened here by chance, and are thus unimportant in the universe.

 

 

i agree, its pointless to think that we are all important creatures, that the earth was made for us, its resources for us and only us to use.

Edited June 17, 2008 by halogirl
multiple post merged

[dichotomy]

i think alot of people want there to be a deity, because they don't like the idea that we control our actions.

 

Well, the environment and our genetic make-up dictate the majority of our actions. Possibly all of them. We are built to desire the best kinds of beauty, power, survival, knowledge, etc that we can get. We don't really have a choice here. Which might make people think that they are being controlled by a deity, when really they are being controlled by natural survival urges and their environment.

 

i agree, its pointless to think that we are all important creatures

 

 

We are important to ourselves and each other. That's the powerful healthy survival instinct and there is nothing wrong with that, because it's the way we can attempt to thrive and succeed. Like the Monty Python crew would say, "We come from nothing, we go back to nothing, what have we lost? NOTHING!"

[foodchain]

to: dichotomy

 

Why is there a need for a deity?

 

i think alot of people want there to be a deity, because they don't like the idea that we control our actions.

what people really want is an excuse to undermine other people, and the thought of being responsible for our actions scares people. thus we want someone to blame, not only that but evolution hurts peoples feelings of superiority to others, because its saying that we just happened here by chance, and are thus unimportant in the universe.

 

 

i agree, its pointless to think that we are all important creatures, that the earth was made for us, its resources for us and only us to use.

 

well what’s wrong with understanding reality? i mean do you ever like to eat food, or something that was once living, do you look like it as taking joy in something’s death or just the food part if you do by chance?

 

the way i look at it at least evolution or the understanding of it allow for i guess the closest you can come to truth in life. i mean what’s the point of raising a bunch of people to believe in other then science. in that world what would global warming be? an act of the supernatural? what would anything be? at least with such understanding we might not kill ourselves off, or better yet design ways to escape from a sun that will explode someday if we don’t get hit by a comet in the meantime. believing something else controls it sort of reminds me of schizophrenia really, along with talking to a god honestly...

[halogirl]

exactly!