Intelligent design? Without postulating supernatural cause, you gotta

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

go with the aliens.

Is that really where the framers of this new answer to evolution want to go?

I think that it would be more feasable than going with magic.

[Maple]

1. Works for me

Makes more sense than either of the other theories. :D

[Ilsa]

2. I just watched the segment on The News Hour.

Well-presented information. It's a shame that our nation is falling prey to ignorance and denial of scientific process. These people will work any angle to get God back into the science class.

I still can't wrap my brain around the concept of dinosaurs living simultaneously as humans, and the dinosaur with a saddle on it really cracked me up. Strange how the dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible anywhere. But these wackos managed to wrap up the more recent and tangible world of dinosaurs with Christianity.

[Maple]

6. Dragons are mentioned

in the Bible. Same diff.

[megatherium]

23. Note, intelligent design advocates are different than the young-earth

creationists. (Although they often break bread together.) IDers like Michael Behe and Bill Dembski acknowledge deep geologic time and descent with modification from a common ancestor. They just claim that random variation plus natural selection cannot explain how the higher taxonomic classifications came to be (they accept evolution at the species or maybe genera level).

The IDers claim to have new advances in science. The truth of the matter is that they are a political movement being supported by serious money from the far right.

An excellent book to read on ID is the Kenneth Miller book, Finding Darwin's God. He is a prominent biologist and biology textbook writer who is also Roman Catholic. He rips apart the ID people, particularly Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box).

[alarimer]

25. What I want to know

Is how did all those dinosaurs fit on the Ark? The Velociraptors woukld have eaten everything in sight.

[Toots]

31. You mean Noah didn't bring in the dinosaurs two by two?

:shrug: I can't imagine poor ol' Noah cleaning up all the dino poop..:crazy:

[Democrat Dragon]

41. The problem when looking for information about ID is that you have to

sift through crap about dinosaurs and humans living together and young Earth "evidence". Although I confess to beliving the Noah story I don't believe there where any dinosaurs or mammoths and that there where probably only 5,000 or so pairs of non-water, non-micoscopic animals. Of course that would bring you to the conclusion that species would migrate and evolve after the incident(A good question to ask a literal creationist would be, "Why do Italians look diffent than Russians?") .

[BlueEyedSon]

3. If they're gonna make shit up, you gotta give 'em their

god(s)....

[tubbacheez]

4. The key problem with "intelligent design" is the punting.

The premise basically says, "Since this observed stuff is more complex than anything we can design today, something more intelligent than us must've designed it."



It doesn't allow for unintelligent means of creation previously unimagined. That possibility is precluded outright.

Instead, it carries the presumptions that all creation must come from intelligence entities, and that having greater intelligence always allows a being to create everything a lesser intelligence could create... plus more.





So it essentially punts on 3rd down. It throws a giant wet blanket on much of the incentive to explore things already ascribed to a greater intelligence.

[dbonds]

7. That also makes the assumption humans are intelligent,

I think the jury is still out on that from what I see going on in the world.

[tubbacheez]

11. Well, if the proponents of intelligent design are any indication... LOL nt

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

8. I reckon they made the world flat at first, then rounded it up when

boats got good enough to go to the edge so's they wouldn't fall off.

[tubbacheez]

14. And that's exactly the danger. It was UNbelievers who dared...

... to try and disprove the existing dogma.



Teaching "intelligent design" in schools, as some phoney "alternative" to genuine and rigorous science, would be giving every student an easy way out.

If the path of mental discipline ever looks too daunting, just start believing in this other thing and you can happily take the path of mental laziness.

And be considered just as smart as the scientists.

[BlueEyedSon]

19. I once peed next to Jesus, in the mens room. You should have seen the

UNIT on that guy!

[alarimer]

26. Who created the creators then?

If there is some intelligent being/god/alien/whatever, then who created them? And who created that one and so on and on...

I think Carl Sagan argued that basically there is no point in evolution- no end point I guess. There is a tendency towards greater complexity but complex does not equal superior and simple does not equal inferior.
I think sometimes that most people assume that humans are the end product of evolution, that we are somehow the pinnacle. Who knows what comes next because we have thrown the natural system so far out of whack.

[tubbacheez]

27. One difficult concept some people have is to realize that

evolution describes a process. There may or may not be a goal attached to this process. Evolution just says, "Here is how changes occur."

Many fans of intelligent design seem to have trouble detaching a process from a goal. They relate to themselves and say things like, "I'm driving my car to the store because I need groceries." If they use this same thought process for the origin of species, absurdity results. Why would anyone drive a car just to drive it around?

By this line of thinking, there must be some purpose to the variety of species. There must be some goal in mind for them to exist. Hence, once stuck in this mode, the mind is deeply unsatisfied with evolution.





I knew a guy once who, while standing in line and somewhat bored, suddenly declared to his friends that "it's simply awe-inspiring thta after eons upon eons, all life on Earth has evolved through hostile environments and geological shifts, and culminated in.... me."

I do admit it's emotionally more fun to have an end goal in mind for evolution.

But my scientific side is perfectly ok sitting in the uncertainty.

[alarimer]

28. I think Carl Sagan or Stephen J. Gould explained it best

But if I am the end result of eveolution, the planet is definitely in trouble. LOL

[tubbacheez]

32. LOL! Good quote! n/t

[spindoctor]

49. That is not what the ID argument is about.

ID simply refers to the observation that there is a certain logic to nature and the way "life" is constructed.

In itself it is not an argument nor was it ever intended to be.

Then again, science is all about observations.

[tubbacheez]

51. Really? This is the first I've heard that any "logic" was involved.

In fact, some fans of intelligent design told me quite recently that one of the best aspects of the theory is how it accounts for some of the ILLOGICAL things found in nature.

So the reasoning goes, if everything were perfectly logical and made sense, no creator is needed. The universe just fell into place this way because it could not do otherwise.

But nature has a few oddities and mysteries here and there. And the presence of these unexplainable (by us) quirks is unacceptable to simply leave unattributed.

Therefore, an intelligence greater than ours must've been at work. And only it could know the reason why these oddities defy (our sense of) logic.



So the reasoning went.

[Malva Zebrina]

5. Since the intelligent designer is not defined

other than defining it with the very human definition or human quality of being "intelligent" the implication or overwhelming implied belief of those who espouse and embrace this theory is that it is a male and it is simultaneously a crucified Christ, a spirit that is holy and a "father" who came into being without ever having a mother; the idea of an alien frog might work.

No other alternative is ever considered.

[Democrat Dragon]

45. Not evey theist is Chrsitian nor belives that God has a true gender

[Tace]

9. Just As With Discussion About God, The Intelligent Design/Evolution

discussion is a semantic pit. I'm of the Hermetic notion that the entire universe is at once a giant mind, and to a large degree, an illusion. I'm sure not going to argue with anyone about it.

Hermetic philosphy teaches that the universe we perceive is a reflection of a greater hyper-demensional reality very much beyond our meat-unit ability to comprehend.

I consider scientific method to be a wonderful modern idea with ultimate limitations. A post-modern view might include an acknowledgement of the human spirit, which the world's religions seek to address. I'm not very articulate about this, but a number of people have written about it.

[KittyWampus]

30. Tace, It's Refreshing To Read Such An Open Minded, Balanced Post

in a thread addressing Intelligent Design.

It seems the Science Fundies are conditioned to accept Materialism without thinking... and they attack anyone who posits a Reality that is more inclusive.

Is the Universe and Humanity nothing but Machines?

[Tux]

10. Personally

If people have a problem with evolution being taught, get a note from mommy, even in college if they don't want to deal with it, give it to the teacher/professor in class and opt out plus don't receive any deductions for the evolution questions since they'll be replaced with a code that opts people out of it. That way we can have evolution and science and the fundies will show themselves as crackheads.

[Pepperbelly]

12. EVERYBODY punts on cosmology and life origin.

No one really has a clue.

[BlueEyedSon]

13. So you think this whole "evolution" thing is a bit sketchy too...?

[Pepperbelly]

15. origin of life and ...

cosmology are all sketchy.

And no, I am not a creationist or anything of the sort. Just a really good bullshit detector who has a real good idea regarding the limits of what we know.

[BlueEyedSon]

20. No one is "punting" on evolution. It's all very well established.

[Pepperbelly]

21. Who ...

said anything about evolution?

[BlueEyedSon]

24. The topic of this thread is "intelligent design", a competing theory to

evolution. So I thought we all were talking about evolution.

[Maple]

16. For all we know

we're a 'Sim World' project by some grade four class in the Andromeda galaxy.

We haven't enough information yet to do more than consider options.

However the 'God-ZOT' idea was ruled out when we discovered lightning wasn't Thor's hammer, and had a more mundane explanation.

[BlueEyedSon]

18. No, we are created by a guy named "Steve", in his dorm room.

[Auntie Bush]

36. "No one really has a clue." Truer words were never spoken!

[HuskiesHowls]

17. Watch the beginning of The Matrix, or The 13th Floor,

or read the Riverworld series....that will explain everything...maybe:)

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

22. I'd love to have dinner with Mark Twain, Tom Mix and Monet...

Goering can charge his grail downstream, though.

[KittyWampus]

29. Another Uninformed Post About Intelligent Design Based On Prejudice

Pathetic.

There are two possiblities:

#1. Universe proceeds from Physical Matter. Consciousness somehow springs magically from Physical Matter as some kind of epiphenomenon.
Consciousness cannot be studied and is tied dependantly upon space and time.

Modern Science/Research as well as Ancient Science/Research refute this view quite well.


#2. Universe proceeds from Consciousness. Physical Matter eventually precipitates as the Original, Limitless Cosciousness manifests on lower and lower energetic vibrations. Consciousness CAN be studied and is independant from space and time.

Modern Science/Research has begun proving this view quite well.

For instance:

Reality is non-local. One particle can effect another particle without any physically obervable means of causuality present.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

34. Pathetic? Should we all now bow down to your superior reasoning and

intellect?

Can you tell me why my dismissal of this new pseudo science is pathetic?

[yewberry]

35. I think you're confused

about the theory of evolution. It does not address the origins of consciousness, it describes the processes & mechanisms through which populations adapt to environment. It is not teleological.

Science does not refute the theory.


Intelligent Design is ultimately non-scientific; it attempts to apply empirical methodology to dogma, frequently Christian dogma. This is not to say that theories of consciousness don't bear out investigation--just that the theory of evolution is not the arena for it.

Science cannot "prove" what is essentially dogmatic. That is what faith is for, after all, and that's not a bad thing. Just a different thing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. Please don't try to hijack this thread

This is about evolution and intelligent design, not about consciousness. Start your own thread if you've something to say about consciousness.

Incidentally, your restriction of your subject to your 2 possibilities is absurd. It's quite possible to study consciousness while holding that it proceeds from matter. For instance: this mind is conscious. It receives a heavy physical blow, and is now unconscious. There, I've studied it.

[Pepperbelly]

38. the poster IS discussing

I.D. It doesn't have to be a God figure to be the I in I.D.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. cryingshame in post 29 said nothing about evolution at all

and his/her only mention of 'intelligent design' was to say the OP was uninformed and prejudiced about it. cryingshame then proceeded to talk about matter and consciousness - a different subject - with no explanation of what the supposed uninformed or prejudiced view was. I was berating cryingshame for this irrelevance.

[Pepperbelly]

42. ok ...

I just dislike seeing posters being rebuked for expressing their opinions. Perhaps the post could have been ... clearer.

[KittyWampus]

50. Your Attempt To Berate Only Makes Yourself Look Bad. I Was Simply

pointing out the bias and unfounded assumptions that opening poster and far too many DU'ers operate under when discussing Evolution and how the WAY the Universe evolves.

[Occulus]

46. 3. Universe proceeds as a consequence of an irreversible event

Schrodinger's Cat. According to the Many Universes (or Many Worlds) Interpretation of quantum physics (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/), when an irreversible event occurs in which the event's starting conditions have more than one possible outcome, a universe is created to accommodate all possible outcomes (as I understand it, anyway, and this is an extreme oversimplification of the theory here). The cat dies, the cat lives; both are true, one in each universe.

Suppose the cat was only harmed by the poison, and not killed as was intended. There's a third possible outcome.

Imagine, if you will, an unending chain of multiple universes, each based upon the outcome of chance that a single quantum particle, say, will move this way or that. Now, extrapolate that method of creation through all possible outcomes of all quantum particles.

And that's only in this universe. The concept can apply to any system. Considering that things like Brownian motion do exist, in which particle systems (quantum level and up through atoms and molecules to complex systems such as humans) move chaotically, there are literally an infinite number of universes that can possibly exist, if this theory is true.

Hawking agrees with MWI, by the way; this theory of creation needs no Creator of any kind to be valid. It's certainly more valid than ID, at any rate.

edit: "Reality is non-local. One particle can effect another particle without any physically obervable means of causuality present."

Entanglement. That's some friggin' spooky behavior there, but I think it may be a key to FTL 'travel' in one sense or another.

[Spider Jerusalem]

53. Bell's Theorem.

[Spider Jerusalem]

52. Nonsense.

"#2. Universe proceeds from Consciousness. Physical Matter eventually precipitates as the Original, Limitless Cosciousness manifests on lower and lower energetic vibrations. Consciousness CAN be studied and is independant from space and time.

Modern Science/Research has begun proving this view quite well."

That's uitterly ABSURD, and completely ill-informed.

Modern science, in fact, has shown reasonably well that that which we call "consciousness" is an epiphenomenon of higher nervous system functions in humans, and cannot exist without something like a human brain to facilitate it.

And the quantum weirdness encountered on the micro-scale does not exist on the macro-scale, so far as has been observed.

Your statements sound an awful lot like most of the other intelligent design arguments I've heard: two parts hogwash tied to one part ill-learnt and poorly-understood scientific concepts.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Not very intelligient designer.

I give you as evidence of a creator with serious gaps critical thinking:

House flies - Couldn't *HE* come up with a better system of garbage removal?

Pain - Supposedly warns of injury/illness. How about a buzzer in our ear or a blinking light on our wrist?

Mosquitoes - Other than thinning the herd with disease and enhancing our skills at slapping I can't think of any useful purpose for them.

Human Beings - Sort of like building a computer and building in a worm that will destroy it...leaving only cockroaches.

[Democrat Dragon]

43. Mosquitoes occupy an import niche

They also pollinate flowers and disease spreading is effective in population control.

"How about a buzzer in our ear or a blinking light on our wrist"
That's not very effective in detecting the location of the injury. Not to mention it is much easier to ignore.

[The Flaming Red Head]

40. Con-telligent designs. It's all about selling books, cassettes and videos

At least there's $OME intelligence behind it, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

[Tactical Progressive]

44. So, who created God?

I mean, if it's just ludicrous that all the wonders of the universe just 'happened' to come into existence, then where did 'God' come from?

[Occulus]

47. God, as a consequence of existence?

God, as the sum of consciousness?

God, as a way for the Universe to know Itself?

I'm thinking God is a far larger concept than we can conceive.

[spindoctor]

48. God created time, Without time there is no need for creation.

Therefore God "always" existed.
I quote always because it's obviously a time reference.

[frank frankly]

54. i think aliens are magical

so it is a win/win for me!

great post!

[autorank]

55. Joad et al, Many of Your Questions are ANSWERED Here-->

Go here: http://www.elftrance.com/multimedia.htm
Click on "Monkey World"
Then click on the blimp at the right of the screen, "Monkey Cosmos"
Take the ride, your questions will be answered.
You can return to "Monkey World" and find more adventures.