Poll: Views about evolution

Reading the article by Kevin Laland, an advocate of the "extended evolutionary synthesis", and critical of scientific traditionalists and (by implication) creationists and advocates of intelligent design, made me wonder where people on this site would place themselves in relation to these categories.

[Laird]

It's strange that the author of the poll would himself vote "None of the above/can't decide between them"!

In any case, I picked that option because I believe that to some extent design was involved in the origin of biological life on this planet, but I'm not sure what that extent is, nor whether the designer was a deity or not, and I also think that there are very likely complex non-paranormal processes involved too. Maybe even random mutation plus natural selection has some role to play too. So, I'd say it's a big mix.

Reading the article by Kevin Laland, an advocate of the "extended evolutionary synthesis", and critical of scientific traditionalists and (by implication) creationists and advocates of intelligent design, made me wonder where people on this site would place themselves in relation to these categories.

From my personal view EES does not put enough weight on the mental work of living things contributing to adaptation.  Living things design themselves in a search for a living experience.

It's strange that the author of the poll would himself vote "None of the above/can't decide between them"!

I'm mildly curious but seriously ignorant about this subject. 

Hmm. I'm not sure how some of Rupert Sheldrake's ideas might fit in here. Perhaps they are paranormal but don't directly involve consciousness?

I can't decide on the definition of a deity. I'm inclined to choose otherwise if the definition should be the kind of deity described by organised religions but if the deity can be described as some kind of creative consciousness, then I'm inclined to go for that. So "none of the above" would seem to be the choice only because the choices are not well defined. I might say neither of the first two but, even then, "paranormal" is hardly a well-defined concept either.

I can't decide on the definition of a deity. I'm inclined to choose otherwise if the definition should be the kind of deity described by organised religions but if the deity can be described as some kind of creative consciousness, then I'm inclined to go for that. So "none of the above" would seem to be the choice only because the choices are not well defined. I might say neither of the first two but, even then, "paranormal" is hardly a well-defined concept either.

Oh for Pete's sake. A deity: a God or goddess
A supreme being, immortal

1.  god or goddess (in a polytheistic religion).
   god, goddess, divine being, supreme being, divinity, immortal;More
   
   
2. the creator and supreme being (in a monotheistic religion such as Christianity).
   

Paranormal in this case assume supernatural. Why because the opposite assumption  lead to natural explanations.

Panspermia
'Natuiral' evolution to Hu=Man
Hu-Man 'naturally' evolves to Homo Erectus/Habilis
Anunnaki re-encodes the DNA on some of the populace
Hu-Man becomes Homo Erectus (consciousness as we know it)
Homo rectus is presntly evolving to Homo Galacticus (post 1990 births)
<eom>

Oh for Pete's sake. A deity: a God or goddess
A supreme being, immortal

1.  god or goddess (in a polytheistic religion).
   god, goddess, divine being, supreme being, divinity, immortal;More
   
   
2. the creator and supreme being (in a monotheistic religion such as Christianity).

Well, these may be the dictionary definitions, but it's not always as clearly defined as this. For instance, in Hinduism, their religion's deities aren't so easily defined as merely polytheistic, because according to Hindu mysticism, all of their thousands of deities are all merely manifestations of Brahman, which is primordial and is the root of all existence. From this perspective, the deities are as mortal as we are, in a sense, because their forms are temporal. The only truly immortal supreme being is Brahman, which is the root of being. Nothing is before it. It is before any sense of time and individuality.

So... the idea of "God" isn't as simplistic as a dictionary definition might lead you to think. This is why philosophy is so interesting...

Paranormal in this case assume supernatural. Why because the opposite assumption  lead to natural explanations.

Both perspectives make little sense. Spiritual phenomena are not "paranormal" nor "supernatural", nor is the opposite "natural", physicalist, philosophical assumptions of the world.

Spiritual phenomena, or at least the common elements experienced by many people throughout the world's history, are quite within the boundaries of being "natural" and "normal". Normal to those who've experience the phenomena in such a way as to not be able to deny their experiences as supposed delusions, and natural because they have occurred.

Nature isn't restricted to matter, but also includes the totality of experience, including the non-material and spiritual.

I was using paranormal as shorthand for "not explainable by currently accepted physical laws". 

I realise "deity" is open to interpretation. I was really thinking of the kind of personal, omnipotent Supreme Being of the main monotheistic religions. But I also used "closest to" in the question to allow some "wiggle room" in what people want to regard as a deity.