Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

Is ET's manipulation of human genetics 'natural' or not?

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

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.

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.

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

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... 

"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.

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?