(2017-09-18, 10:55 AM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]As in a lot of "causes" sometimes the popular name gets in the way.
"Intelligent design" implies to me that we were totally envisioned and "designed" by some person or thing. And that might imply a singular event and not a long, slow creative process. This is why I was some quick to contrast against "biblical" accounts.
Honestly I've never spent any time digging into the subject deeply so I must admit, I saw ID in that (binary) light. Nice to here that another view of ID is more rational .
This is very similar to the fact that MANY people look at the survival of consciousnesses/psi/paranormal questions as binary: ie- religion vs science. When actually there are at least three alternative views: religion vs science vs consciousness-centric (is that a good label?)
I think the point is Intelligent Design means exactly what it says - something consciously created by an entity that intended to achieve something.
A lot of that design seems to go into arms races between different species - so it isn't reasonable to attribute the whole thing to God! Conceding that the ID movement was inspired by Christianity, this is really the fault of the Darwinists, who didn't want to admit that their concept of evolution by NS wasn't going to work, and doesn't seem to fit the facts. As always, the details about the larger reality aren't clear - it is far easier to recognise faulty ideas than to replace them!
I think the danger is that the real message behind all the new ideas about evolution will be muddied by a reluctance to set out what I think is obvious - that you absolutely need some sort of high level conscious awareness to create (and probably to maintain) life, and that that in turn implies that consciousness can exist without a body!
David
(2017-09-19, 08:03 AM)DaveB Wrote: [ -> ]I think the point is Intelligent Design means exactly what it says - something consciously created by an entity that intended to achieve something.
A lot of that design seems to go into arms races between different species - so it isn't reasonable to attribute the whole thing to God! Conceding that the ID movement was inspired by Christianity, this is really the fault of the Darwinists, who didn't want to admit that their concept of evolution by NS wasn't going to work, and doesn't seem to fit the facts. As always, the details about the larger reality aren't clear - it is far easier to recognise faulty ideas than to replace them!
David
"
I think the point is Intelligent Design means exactly what it says - something consciously created by an entity that intended to achieve something."
Perhaps that's the usual interpretation. But there must be a range of views, for example, perhaps cells themselves are intelligent. Perhaps intelligence is pervasive, like a fluid which flows at every level, from cells and organisms right through to planets, stars and galaxies?
All I'm saying is that it isn't necessary to invoke an 'entity', that seems more like the old mythologies whether of Norse, Greek, Egyptian or other cultural origin.
(2017-09-19, 08:03 AM)DaveB Wrote: [ -> ]I think the point is Intelligent Design means exactly what it says - something consciously created by an entity that intended to achieve something.
A lot of that design seems to go into arms races between different species - so it isn't reasonable to attribute the whole thing to God! Conceding that the ID movement was inspired by Christianity, this is really the fault of the Darwinists, who didn't want to admit that their concept of evolution by NS wasn't going to work, and doesn't seem to fit the facts. As always, the details about the larger reality aren't clear - it is far easier to recognise faulty ideas than to replace them!
I think the danger is that the real message behind all the new ideas about evolution will be muddied by a reluctance to set out what I think is obvious - that you absolutely need some sort of high level conscious awareness to create (and probably to maintain) life, and that that in turn implies that consciousness can exist without a body!
David
snip- Intelligent Design means exactly what it says - something consciously created by an entity that intended to achieve something
OK. Well then I feel better about remaining unconvinced of it then. Although I have a feeling that your opinion is not shared by many who are ID adherents.
It's one thing to say that we are not the result of a string of accidents. It's totally another to say we were the result of God designing us "all at one go", so to speak (if I take your comment correctly?).. There is certainly more evidence for the former than the later in my view.
In addition, your view requires that I first need to accept that "God" exists. A pretty big bite of the apple I would say. And I am not willing accept that, lacking some better evidence than I have seen to date.
(2017-09-19, 09:26 AM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]snip- Intelligent Design means exactly what it says - something consciously created by an entity that intended to achieve something
OK. Well then I feel better about remaining unconvinced of it then. Although I have a feeling that your opinion is not shared by many who are ID adherents.
It's one thing to say that we are not the result of a string of accidents. It's totally another to say we were the result of God designing us "all at one go", so to speak (if I take your comment correctly?).. There is certainly more evidence for the former than the later in my view.
In addition, your view requires that I first need to accept that "God" exists. A pretty big bite of the apple I would say. And I am not willing accept that, lacking some better evidence than I have seen to date.
Hang on - I'm not postulating that God did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your snip of what I wrote didn't specify God, it specified a conscious intelligence, and indeed I pointed out that God would presumably not have engaged in an arms race with himself - so at the very least some species would need a different intelligence from others which they are struggling against!
I can understand your reluctance to concede anything to bible thumpers - I really can - but unfortunately it would seem that biological science has created this mess by insisting ad-nauseam that evolution by NS is proved beyond all doubt!
When it comes to designing "all at one go", some pretty heavyweight design seems to have been necessary to get life off the ground at all. As you know, there have been a variety of theories about how life evolved from something much simpler - something without the decoding step - but none of them seem to have got anywhere at all. Geology also seems to indicate that changes happened very suddenly - rather leaving a trail of successive changes, which is absolutely required by natural selection.
You might want to read Stephen Meyer's book. There is only about one reference to Christianity in it - the rest is about arguments against evolution by NS (with references).
David
(2017-09-19, 04:47 PM)DaveB Wrote: [ -> ]Hang on - I'm not postulating that God did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your snip of what I wrote didn't specify God, it specified a conscious intelligence, and indeed I pointed out that God would presumably not have engaged in an arms race with himself - so at the very least some species would need a different intelligence from others which they are struggling against!
I can understand your reluctance to concede anything to bible thumpers - I really can - but unfortunately it would seem that biological science has created this mess by insisting ad-nauseam that evolution by NS is proved beyond all doubt!
When it comes to designing "all at one go", some pretty heavyweight design seems to have been necessary to get life off the ground at all. As you know, there have been a variety of theories about how life evolved from something much simpler - something without the decoding step - but none of them seem to have got anywhere at all. Geology also seems to indicate that changes happened very suddenly - rather leaving a trail of successive changes, which is absolutely required by natural selection.
You might want to read Stephen Meyer's book. There is only about one reference to Christianity in it - the rest is about arguments against evolution by NS (with references).
David
OK sorry. Misunderstood.
That's cool.
I was unaware of other intelligent agents out there who were purported to exist. Please enlighten me. Aliens per chance?
Re: the book. As I think I probably mentioned early in this thread, I just don't have the time to devote to getting up to speed on another "off the wall" topic. I am already working on several,,, enough to keep me busy for a while I'm afraid. But thanks for the suggestion...
(2017-09-19, 08:16 AM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]"I think the point is Intelligent Design means exactly what it says - something consciously created by an entity that intended to achieve something."
Perhaps that's the usual interpretation. But there must be a range of views, for example, perhaps cells themselves are intelligent. Perhaps intelligence is pervasive, like a fluid which flows at every level, from cells and organisms right through to planets, stars and galaxies?
All I'm saying is that it isn't necessary to invoke an 'entity', that seems more like the old mythologies whether of Norse, Greek, Egyptian or other cultural origin.
Intricate, irreducibly complex design is widespread in life. The only source we know of of such designs is our own focused, self-aware, conscious intelligence, the intelligence of entities that use logical steps of reasoning plus sometimes intuitive creative leaps to do their work and solve their engineering problems one step at a time. It seems reasonable to me to surmise that whatever the intelligence is behind macroevolution, it also has these properties. To me, a "pervasive intelligence" imbued in everything just doesn't fit those requirements. It is interesting that some channeled teachings have it that this consists of intervention from outside our physical world by spirits of some sort (higher beings that are not God, sometimes claimed to be groups of souls specialized in these matters). ID of course does not speculate about these things (the nature of the intelligence) - this movement just continues to make a better and better case for its necessary existence.
(2017-09-19, 06:42 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]Intricate, irreducibly complex design is widespread in life. The only source we know of of such designs is our own focused, self-aware, conscious intelligence, the intelligence of entities that use logical steps of reasoning plus sometimes intuitive creative leaps to do their work and solve their engineering problems one step at a time. It seems reasonable to me to surmise that whatever the intelligence is behind macroevolution, it also has these properties. To me, a "pervasive intelligence" imbued in everything just doesn't fit those requirements. It is interesting that some channeled teachings have it that this consists of intervention from outside our physical world by spirits of some sort (higher beings that are not God, sometimes claimed to be groups of souls specialized in these matters). ID of course does not speculate about these things (the nature of the intelligence) - this movement just continues to make a better and better case for its necessary existence.
OK. I suppose referencing intelligence doesn't require one to specifically point to the intelligence. After all, if what we often talk about is real, there are multiple possibilities...
I just keep thinking that this design didn't happen all at once but changes seem to have been introduced in occasional chunks, over time. I think of them as "nudges in the right direction". Just my intuition. Haven't read on the subject. It this the way it is purported?
The fundamental problem with evolution by natural selection is that it absolutely has to proceed one small step at a time, and each step has to somehow be beneficial. This may have sounded reasonable in Darwin's day, but it doesn't really stand up now.
1) Most DNA evolutionary developments require large numbers of DNA-base additions/changes. Sure it is possible for genes to get passed around by horizontal transfer, bu that doesn't explain how they arose in the first place. Also, I would argue that even if a new enzyme (say) were to be created against the odds, it would almost certainly upset the biochemical balance inside the cell and be selected against. Think of a protease - without some sort of a tight control mechanism, it would just wreak havoc.
2) The same sort of problem appears on the macro scale. For a whale to evolve from a land based mammal, a lot of changes have to take place. These don't seem to appear in the fossil record, and anyway, it is very hard to imagine intermediate creatures that would be viable, let alone superior to their less evolved cousins.
David
(2017-09-19, 08:20 AM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]I think this statement demonstrates a preconceived idea of what God is.
Well without some kind of preconceived notion of what 'God' is supposed to mean, it isn't really meaningful to use the term!
Indeed, I prefer not to refer to God at all - partly for that reason.
David
(2017-09-19, 07:21 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]OK. I suppose referencing intelligence doesn't require one to specifically point to the intelligence. After all, if what we often talk about is real, there are multiple possibilities...
I just keep thinking that this design didn't happen all at once but changes seem to have been introduced in occasional chunks, over time. I think of them as "nudges in the right direction". Just my intuition. Haven't read on the subject. It this the way it is purported?
The major thinkers and writers in ID usually stay away from speculating about the nature of this intelligence, but yes, they make the case for macroevolutionary changes having been introduced in chunks or steps so to say, interspersed by long stretches of gradual microevolutionary change by Darwinian mechanisms. The biggest chunk was of course the origin of life itself, before there even was evolution. The next biggest step appears to have been the Cambrian Explosion, the sudden appearance of most of the animal phyla body plans, embodied as complex systems of systems. Then there are the many major intricate irreducibly complex adaptations that occurred rapidly or suddenly at the origin of some of the individual classes, orders and genera. These are things like insect metamorphosis, and the echolocation system and many other major creative new adaptations necessary in other body systems in whales. These major body system modifications in the various animal lines appear to have been introduced in a series of big steps, with of course each step based on the one before it. A very imperfect analogy is that it seems to be like human engineers periodically coming up with new innovations but naturally basing each new model/design on the previous one rather than going back to the beginning and reinventing the whole product. Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould originated the term "punctuated equilibrium" for this stepwise pattern he observed in evolution. He never came up with an adequate reductionist materialist mechanism for it.