OT: Evolution vs intelligent design

[SPJ]

Origins of life. The ultimate Q.

Life must come from life.

The first life must be created by a creator or random chance.

Evolution is meant to say change or adaptation over time. We have better car, telecom, computer TV, cell phone etc. Evolution did not say anything about the original creation or the start point.

Are the better products and services indicating the evolution selected or driven by the market place and consumers?

Are they better intelligent designs to adapt?

I do not think evolution and creation contradict each other

what is your comment?

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/science...elligentdesign

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../050530fa_fact

[viper]

I would be willing to pherhaps put in my 2 cents into this thread but when it comes to this debate noway simple we are here now lets move forward.

[Mr Punch]

Evolution by rear naked choke end of round one.

Intelligent design had a chance towards the beginning of the fight with a double leg and ground and pound, but let's face it, evolution was just a more developed all-round fighter

[Mr Punch]

Precisely.

It is a perfect example of evolution when the least-evolved people try to argue something in court! Survival of the fittest: case dismissed.


ID - for people who don't know who (or what) they are!



















































And I was trying to get with the Solstice spirit and not insult anyone... sigh

[lkfmdc]

I can't tell you how much easier breathing became the day I fully afirmed my atheism

Can't help myself though.....

"God is dead"
- Nitze

"Nitze is dead"
- God

[Chief Fox]

We are in the midst of a hiccup between ice ages.

[Ben Gash]

This is an issue that is very difficult to discuss rationally. For example, cjurakpt believes that he is speaking rationally in terms of the rational. However, he is in fact discussing his beliefs. As he himself says, he doesn't know what happens after death, therefore he is not acting on solid information. He chooses to believe what he does because it makes him feel better about himself. Therefore he should probably refrain from sneering at others who believe differently.
As for evolution, again, you have to think about it in terms of belief. Evolutionary theory is just that. Macro evolution cannot be directly observed, cannot be proven experimentally and cannot be repeated or reversed. It is therefore at it's most fundamental level unscientific. This is then compounded by the fact that the bulk of post Darwinian work (and the majority of postwar work) has worked on the assumption that macro evolution is fact, with no nul hypothesis stating that evolution doesn't happen. This again is fundamentally unscientific. The methods used to date things (because the world has to be older than the Bible says to accomodate macro evolution, another unscientific assumption) are theoretical, and have been repeatedly called into question. No-one has directly observed the degredation of isotopes over thousands of years, therefore it is only assumption that it is uniform.
It even breaks it's own rules, as in terms of survival, reproduction and DNA perpetuation, it's very hard to beat a simple single celled organsim.
Attempts to map interspecies human evolution are much less solid than claimed, the "missing link" being more a case of a missing 6 foot length of chain. A jaw fragment and a piece of thighbone are hardly a sound basis for how you view the universe.
Viewed this way, macro evolution is a belief system. It cannot be proved or disproved, therefore it is a matter of belief. It is a faith where man is god, due to his "advanced " evolution, and biologists are it's priests.
Viewed this way, the manner it is taught in schools becomes more serious. Why do most of us believe in macro evolution? In most cases not because we have seriously studied the issue and weighed up the evidence before making our own judgements. It's because we were taught it as fact in school, and encouraged not to question it.
Therefore maybe it's a good thing to offer alternatives to it in education, or alter the emphasis with which it is taught.
As with many such things, it doesn't make a great deal of difference to our daily lives in and of itself, so why is it such a "holy cow" in educational terms?

[FuXnDajenariht]

i dont see a conflict neitha'

[FatherDog]

Macro evolution cannot be directly observed, cannot be proven experimentally and cannot be repeated or reversed. It is therefore at it's most fundamental level unscientific.

Microcurvature of the earth can and has been observed, but macrocurvature just isn't possible! Assuming we live on a round earth is unscientific!

[greensage22]

we will never know for sure, so why bother arguing.

[Oso]

I said that way the fvck upthread:

Why all the fuss?


Nobody, KNOWS.

We're all gonna find out for sure soon enough.

Maybe I'm just not intellectual enough (forget that, I know I'm not)

I just don't get why people feel the need to vehemently argue about things they can't possibly prove. I'm not talking about a solidly formed, logical argument. But, real honest to goodness, live birth, proof.

But, people seem to gain satisfaction from doing it. So...

[Merryprankster]

Oso,

I think what you'll find is that people arguing about things like "the big bang doesn't explain everything," fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of science and the big bang theory. The argument over science or creation is, I think, fundamentally miscast. It's a bogus question to begin with.

I'm with you - I'm largely unconcerned with the CAUSATION of the universe. That is a metaphysical question. Let the apologists on all sides whack away at the problem. It is intractable for science, as near as I can tell.

I am, however, terribly interested IN the universe, which science is quite useful for!

[Oso]

I'm with you - I'm largely unconcerned with the CAUSATION of the universe. That is a metaphysical question. Let the apologists on all sides whack away at the problem. It is intractable for science, as near as I can tell.

well put...

the monkeys will keep hammering at that coconut forever though.

don't anyone take that comment personally

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Metaphysics... Beyond physics, beyond quantifiable observation.. but, no less real.. There may be much BS in the category considered as metaphysics, but there are also matters concerning the nature of the universe and our role in it.. it is quite possible to function in the "known" universe and live a rich and rewarding life.. it is equally possible to inquire into the metaphysical aspect of the universe for an enhanced understanding of our relationship with the universe and still experience a rich and rewarding life.. there are those that are comfortable with the status quo, and there are those that seek answers.. neither should conflict with the other, just differing preferences.. it is the need to feel superior in one's beliefs that instigates conflict.. i see no conflict between ID vs. evolution.. i can reason that evolution could be a process designed to determine the nature of the universe by some other inquisitor..

The largest problem with ID is its association with religious agendas.. The concept of ID, by itself, has no personality.. it simply surmises that there is likely a purpose to the universe, a direction.. from which it is reasoned that the purpose or direction is a product of a thought process, of a consciousness. My own observations suggest that most (inluding my former opinions) fear the motivation of a creative consciousness, that in some way it diminishes our role or our freewill.. i sense it does not, that our freewill is a part of evolution, a necessity.. otherwise it would be a pointless game.. to pursue inquiry into this process is not without merit, it could uncover answers that improve the human condition.. is this a problem?

The pursuit of inquiry into metaphysical possibilities should be balanced with attention to the known universe.. "chop wood, carry water" can be a mindless drill or an enlightened experience.. both accomplish the same task and both serve the preferences of the experiencer.. to add conflict due to perspectives has no rational purpose..

Metaphysics.. beyond physics (beyond measurement).. becomes conventional physics whenever we develop a technology to observe and quantify the conceptual experience.. Without invoking the criticism of historical fanatics, the following analogy serves as an example.. Until columbus found the "New World", the world of his time was thought to be flat, people rejected the notion of a spherical earth.. Columbus's beliefs became science due to his pursuit of his beliefs.. Some people reject possibilities that they aren't comfortable with rather than letting the "evolution" of experienced based knowledge determine the validity of the metaphysical claim(s).. So much of today's science was once ridiculed as delusional thought.. To reject new ideas or new theories or concepts you find unfavorable is to be rigid and closed minded.. it is stagnant. To acknowledge possibilities is to permit growth and "evolution", evolution is change at its elegant best.. rejection of possibilities is stagnation, even absurd possibilities.. it is a limitation of creativity..

So far, i sense that a brilliant consciousness set the universe, as we know it, in motion and let it grow according to its own nature (evolution).. this consciousness, whatever it is, trumps entrophy and maintains eternal creativity..

While science has contributed to modern comforts and a comfortable lifestyle for the more affluent, it has also subjugated the less fortunate and some of its by-products hold the doomsday equation... I hope there is a balance..

Be well.. and, these are simply my own opinions.. not worthy of conflict..

[Merryprankster]

see no conflict between ID vs. evolution.

That's because there isn't one. There is no contradiction. One is an ultimate causality (a why), the other is a mechanism (a how).

The largest problem with ID is its association with religious agendas.. The concept of ID, by itself, has no personality.. it simply surmises that there is likely a purpose to the universe, a direction.. from which it is reasoned that the purpose or direction is a product of a thought process, of a consciousness.

Your own observations about human fear aside, the largest problem with ID as a "theory" is that it's not science. You want to teach ID somewhere, be my guest. Just don't teach it in science class. When you start asking/answering why in the grand causation sense, you aren't talking about science anymore. That is unavoidably a metaphysical question, not a physical one.

Your Colombus analogy is flawed (apart from the historical inaccuracy - which you are right to deem immaterial to the conversation at hand) because it could be resolved by simple experimentation.

Show me the experiment that reveals an ID. Show me an experiment anywhere at anytime that would do so, seeing as an ID as the ultimate cause would by necessity exist outside the known universe, and therefore outside time itself, which defines the limits of science? No technology will allow us to see outside time. Ever. Time defines information and its flow. Cosmologists short-handedly refer to this as "the light cone." The Universe began, time and the light cone began. Information in our universe did not exist prior to that, ergo, science cannot look beyond it.

Some might try to get around this by talk of other dimensions, but those other dimensions would by definition be part of our observable universe if we ever manage to "see" them - they would be part of the light cone. String theory, certainly, postulates anywhere between 10 and 21 of them.

As Indiana Jones once said: "Archaeology is the search for facts - if you want to search for truth, Philosophy is right down the hall."

To reject new ideas or new theories or concepts you find unfavorable is to be rigid and closed minded.. it is stagnant.

ID is not new. It's as old as animism at least.