Quick Poll: Intelligent Design (evolutionary, quote, evolution, religion)

[coosjoaquin]

Originally Posted by MRiedl

Antibiotic resistance remains a favorite of mine because it is impossible to simply dismiss out of hand as it is so well documented. Need I remind you that evolutionary biology is being applied in the medical field with regard to our research in these areas as well and producing results.

Thats one of my favourites too. Considering that i have seen first hand evolution in action, it makes me chuckle when the cdesign propotentists say it is impossible.

Observable phenomena
(Mutations+Natural selection)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MAGIC!!!!

[Cirbryn]

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

I'm so encouraged by those folks who had the intellect to answer on that second option.

Now THAT'S being honest on the subject and is a testimony to being open to any answer for questions that we don't know for sure the answer on.

Of course I am biased, I'm a believer, but I think those (currently) four individuals actually grasp the point I've been trying to make in at least two threads and they do it from an unbiased, non-believer standpoint.

bigthirsty, great poll! (Although I might have changed the word 'accepting' to 'considering' in the first two options, but hey hey, I ain't complaining...I'm just sayin.....)

I think you're confusing theistic evolution with intelligent design. Intelligent design is the argument that some adaptations could not have evolved and so must have been intelligently designed. You can't get there simply by concluding that evolution isn't fully understood. And being a "believer" (a theist) doesn't necessarily make you biased for or against evolution.

[accelerator]

Originally Posted by Cirbryn

I think you're confusing theistic evolution with intelligent design. Intelligent design is the argument that some adaptations could not have evolved and so must have been intelligently designed. You can't get there simply by concluding that evolution isn't fully understood. And being a "believer" (a theist) doesn't necessarily make you biased for or against evolution.

What's "theistic evolution" mean.. ?

I've never heard of it..:-(

Anyway.. I can't understand why intelligent design.. and evolution.. are to be considered at odds with one another either.... I find that quiet puzzling.

To me.. evolution seems to be evidence of intelligent design.. in itself.

If we define: intelligence.. as the ability to solve problems.. and to learn.

Evolution.. would seem to be.. a real problem solving adventure.

Right from the beginning of the universe.


And yet.. does the universe have any real problems in its design.. ?

Apart from us..;-)

If not.. intelligent design.. would seem to be true.

---
The Dawn of Consciousness
According to this scenario, tissue differentiation, agency and intelligent behavior were occurring for a billion years from the symbiotic origin of eukaryotes to the Cambrian explosion (Figure 1). What then happened? Was some critical level of intelligent behavior suddenly reached? Did consciousness then appear? Could primitive consciousness have significantly improved fitness and survivability beyond previous benefit provided by non-conscious agency and intelligent behavior?

One possible advantage of consciousness for natural selection is the ability to make choices. As Margulis and Sagan (1995) observe (echoing similar, earlier thoughts by Erwin Schrödinger), " If we grant our ancestors even a tiny fraction of the free will, consciousness, and culture we humans experience, the increase in [life's] complexity on Earth over the last several thousand million years becomes easier to explain: life is the product not only of blind physical forces but also of selection in the sense that organisms choose. . ." (Scott, 1996).

By itself, the ability to make choices is insufficient evidence for consciousness (e.g. computers can choose intelligently). However non-computable, seemingly random conscious choices with an element of unpredictability may have been particularly advantageous for survival in predator-prey dynamics (e.g. Barinaga, 1996).

Quantum Consciousness

-

[Cirbryn]

Originally Posted by accelerator

What's "theistic evolution" mean.. ? I've never heard of it..:-(

Theistic evolution is the position that a god or gods produced existing species using the method of evolution. It’s essentially the correct term for what you’re calling intelligent design. The term “intelligent design” not only means that existing species were intelligently designed, but also that they could not have been produced by evolution.

Originally Posted by accelerator

If we define: intelligence.. as the ability to solve problems.. and to learn. Evolution.. would seem to be.. a real problem solving adventure. Right from the beginning of the universe.

So too might the ability of a river to reach the sea. But neither a river nor evolution actually learns, which was the second part of your definition. Also, evolution doesn’t cover events “right from the beginning of the universe”. It covers how multiple species descended from a single initial species appearing on Earth about 3.5 billion years ago.

Originally Posted by accelerator

And yet.. does the universe have any real problems in its design.. Apart from us..;-)

See here for examples: Argument from poor design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[accelerator]

Originally Posted by Cirbryn

Theistic evolution is the position that a god or gods produced existing species using the method of evolution. It’s essentially the correct term for what you’re calling intelligent design.

Going by the definition of Theistic evolution.. (I found it on the link you gave me).. that’s not what I meant.. Though.. I agree with it in part.. insomuch as.. I cannot understand why the two ideas are seen as being separate.. and therefore are.. seemingly.. in conflict.

In this case.. the most simple solution.. would seem to be the best one.

To quote what they are saying..

“In this way, theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who deny the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science; that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not be contradictory.”


I’m not aware of any religious teachings that explain the physical creation.. for me.. the creation myth is concerned with the creation of the - spirit - of mankind.. rather than a physical creation.

I’m just making the observation that evolution seems to display a great deal of intelligent design.. but I’m not putting that down to a supernatural being.

More like there is an underlying wholeness.. that unites all things.

-
"Hermes: Hush, son! and understand what God, what Cosmos is, what is a life that cannot die, and what a life subject to dissolution.

Yea, understand the Cosmos is by God and in God; but Man by Cosmos and in Cosmos.

The source and limit and the constitution of all things is God. " - Corpus Hemeticum
-

In my mad mind.. I see the universe as having a mental dimension.. that enables a kind of cosmic self-regulation.. I see energy organizing itself intelligently.. in its own chaotic manner.

Just as I chaotically organize myself.. when I get out of bed..:-)


[/quote] So too might the ability of a river to reach the sea. But neither a river nor evolution actually learns, which was the second part of your definition. [/quote]

I would think all life forms have to learn adaptation.. but then my knowledge of biology is very limited.

As for a river.. I don’t see this as an example of problem solving.. A river is just following the path of least resistance.. (gravity).. and gravity seems to order things fairly intelligently.

Without.. we would have lots of problems.. for sure.. the universe would be in chaos..=:-0


[/quote] Also, evolution doesn’t cover events “right from the beginning of the universe”. It covers how multiple species descended from a single initial species appearing on Earth about 3.5 billion years ago. [/quote]

In my mind it does.. :-)

The Universe

I’m not thinking in terms of only Darwinian evolution.. I’m using the word in its widest sense… I’m thinking of it in terms of the big picture.. that the universe has evolved out of nothing.. then the stars and the planets evolved.. then life..

And then we get into an evolution of the spirit.. etc.

I include the ideas of Teilhard de Chardin too.. when I think in terms of evolution.

TEILHARD DE CHARDIN

Aaaaaaaah!!...... that link you gave me..

It is a joke.. isn’t it?..:-)

[/quote]See here for examples: Argument from poor design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/quote]

I took a look at it.. but they are just nit picking.. such arguments can not be taken seriously.. can they?

To quote:
“Photosynthetic plants that reflect green light, even though the sun's peak output is at this wavelength. A more optimal system of photosynthesis would use the entire solar spectrum, thus resulting in black plants.”

What they don’t seem to be considering is.. intelligence is NOT the same as being perfect.

Even our greatest thinkers made mistakes..

Does this mean they lack intelligence.. ?

This link is a joke.. isn’t it?

Or is the entire world crazy?

---
“Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.”
Andre Gide

-

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by RoaminRed

You should have this:

"I am not a Christian, and I oppose teaching anything in science class that has no scientific basis."

Well right now Evolution is being taught as if it were a religion. And there is few out there who would dare say anything to oppose this view. There is evidence that would put into question if this theory was true. Yet, that evidence will not be allow in the class room, nor will it see the light of day.

So now you can bow your head and say bless you Darwin.

[stycotl]

i see a design that was created intelligently. i think that evolution was a part of that creation. i think that science can explain a lot--and every day more--of the method that God used to put everything down here in the order (or disorder) that it is in.

is it perfect? in one sense, no. in one sense, yes.

no, because entropy is far from perfection.

yes, because it does exatly what it was meant to do. we would not experience mortality correctly if it were a perpetually perfect system. in that sense, i like entropy.

[RoaminRed]

Originally Posted by stycotl

i see a design that was created intelligently. i think that evolution was a part of that creation. i think that science can explain a lot--and every day more--of the method that God used to put everything down here in the order (or disorder) that it is in.

is it perfect? in one sense, no. in one sense, yes.

no, because entropy is far from perfection.

yes, because it does exatly what it was meant to do. we would not experience mortality correctly if it were a perpetually perfect system. in that sense, i like entropy.

Whoa, wait a minute! Entropy is NOT the opposite of perfection. I think you're a little confused with your terms here.

[Cirbryn]

Originally Posted by accelerator

I’m just making the observation that evolution seems to display a great deal of intelligent design.. but I’m not putting that down to a supernatural being.

Originally Posted by accelerator

As for a river.. I don’t see this as an example of problem solving.. A river is just following the path of least resistance.. (gravity).. and gravity seems to order things fairly intelligently.

Both evolution and a river appear at first glance to exhibit intelligent goal-directed activity. But neither shows the ability to plan or model alternatives or learn from mistakes that are generally associated with intelligence. A river just flows downward when it can, and when it can’t it fills the basin until it can spill over. Evolution by natural selection just causes lineages to adopt whatever mutational changes produce immediate fitness benefits, without regard to what might help the species as a whole, or which adaptations might lead to greater fitness benefits sometime in the future.

Originally Posted by accelerator

I’m not thinking in terms of only Darwinian evolution.. I’m using the word in its widest sense… I’m thinking of it in terms of the big picture.. that the universe has evolved out of nothing.. then the stars and the planets evolved.. then life..

Then you should specify that. The mechanisms of biological evolution are completely different from the manner in which the universe “evolved”. A better term for what the universe has gone through would probably be “development”. Also, there’s no evidence that the universe evolved or developed “out of nothing”.

Originally Posted by accelerator

Aaaaaaaah!!...... that link you gave me..

It is a joke.. isn’t it?..:-)

Not at all. The point is to consider what we’d expect from a mindless process that follows a simple stepwise algorithm and compare that to what we’d expect from an intelligent designer. Are there any examples in nature of “design” that could be reached by the latter but not by the former? No. Are there any examples that we wouldn’t expect from the latter but would expect from the former? Yes, many of which are listed at the linked site. So we’re not saying that an intelligent designer couldn’t make a few mistakes (although frankly an omnipotant god shouldn’t be doing so). We’re saying instead that the evidence taken as a whole supports design by mindless process as opposed to design by intelligence.

Now does this constitute evidence against the existence of God? Sort of. It constitutes evidence against the existence of an omnipotent creator who’s goal was to design living species to perform as well as possible. The religious answer to that would be the same as to the question of why God allows such suffering in the world: He must have his reasons, and in time we may come to understand them.

[bigthirsty]

Well its split 50-50 after 8 days of polling.. (really 51-49 but there has to be some margin of error right?).