Intelligent Design or Evolution?

[Hodgepodge]

That still doesn't change my point Karl.

A more intelligent entity needs to be designed before evolution decides to favor it.

That's where mutation comes in.

 

[Hodgepodge]

It is said that we all have at least one atom in our body that belonged to William Shakespeare at one time.

 

[Clown]

I don't believe you [that you love your dog], prove it?

It would not surprise me if there existed a brain-scanning device which could indeed 'prove' that somebody loved something.

That is, they scan your brain and when certain parts light up/change color on the monitor, this is taken to be an indication of love/attachment.

So, by going through a selection of photos (or, particularly in the case of humans, items of clothing which still carry scent), the person operating the scanner could determine which things somebody 'loves'.

Just a thought.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

"encephalisation" as in brain mass in direct relation to body mass?

If so, what is the cut off ratio?



A level of subjectiveness or, dare I say it, self awareness?

I would say that there are different types/forms of consciousness, which could probably be arranged along a continuum. In order to posses the most basic form of consciousness would require a minimum point of encaphilastion (I am not sure as to what this would be exactly). Whereas, to acquire human consciousness requires, as I mentioned above, a high degree of reentrant interaction, which is not just about brain mass, but also about the level and complexity of connectivity.

Many would suggest that consciousness is more than simple awareness of the surroundings and does entail self-awareness. Others would disagree. I would say that it requires the ability to distinguish between a self and non-self and to mediate interaction between the two. By self, I mean simply something that is a separate entity from its surroundings.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

We all possess multiple self's imo.

Anyway, I just had an intersting thought regarding those who believe in a form (any form) of ID and those who believe evolution explains all.

Studies have shown that every area on earth where the life expectancy age is highest, has an exceedingly high rate of 'believers' in ID. I believe Okinawans and another community in California have the highest life expectancy, and among other factos such as diet and temperature etc they are also very devout (but not fanatical) creationists.

Why would evolution seemingly reward belief in ID?

I am fully open to the theory that all spirituality is merely a mechanism to make sense of the world, and the gaps in scientific explanations. I'm just not sure that disbelieving in that mechanism is a wise idea when life expectancy appears to be lower in non-believers.*

I don't subscribe to this theory, and fully believe we have souls and are effectively eternal, and that human life is merely a "diet" version of our full consciousness, given material form.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

We all possess multiple self's imo.

Anyway, I just had an intersting thought regarding those who believe in a form (any form) of ID and those who believe evolution explains all.

Studies have shown that every area on earth where the life expectancy age is highest, has an exceedingly high rate of 'believers' in ID. I believe Okinawans and another community in California have the highest life expectancy, and among other factos such as diet and temperature etc they are also very devout (but not fanatical) creationists.

Why would evolution seemingly reward belief in ID?

I am fully open to the theory that all spirituality is merely a mechanism to make sense of the world, and the gaps in scientific explanations. I'm just not sure that disbelieving in that mechanism is a wise idea when life expectancy appears to be lower in non-believers.*

I don't subscribe to this theory, and fully believe we have souls and are effectively eternal, and that human life is merely a "diet" version of our full consciousness, given material form.

Interesting idea Karl. It is possible that belief in ID is somehow a fitness advantage (in terms of fecundity and survivability). This would not, however, undermine the process of evolution. It is more likely, however, that this relationship between belief in ID and high life expectancy is a correlational relationship as opposed to causal.

 

[evo]

Why would evolution seemingly reward belief in ID?

.

Why would someone who doesn't subscribe to evolution even care?

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Why would evolution seemingly reward belief in ID?

.

This would only be problematic if ID was maladaptive. Evolution does not have anything against ID, it is the proponents of both sides that take issue with each other.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Why would someone who doesn't subscribe to evolution even care?

I'm not sure, you'd have to ask someone who doesn't subscribe to evolution.

I like discussing ideas more than arguing back and forth dogmatically.

 

[Niximus]

Anyway, I just had an intersting thought regarding those who believe in a form (any form) of ID and those who believe evolution explains all.

Studies have shown that every area on earth where the life expectancy age is highest, has an exceedingly high rate of 'believers' in ID. I believe Okinawans and another community in California have the highest life expectancy, and among other factos such as diet and temperature etc they are also very devout (but not fanatical) creationists.

Why would evolution seemingly reward belief in ID?

What studies? The developed world are becoming less and less religious all the time.

The only exception being the US and well, enough said there.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

What studies? The developed world are becoming less and less religious all the time.

The only exception being the US and well, enough said there.

Read them a while ago - it wasn't talking about nations, but communities within nations.

It is curious though, and presents a conundrum for the avid dogmatic evolutionary - in that they KNOW evolution is reponsible for us, yet if they follow evolution to the letter then they have to recognise that believing in ID is a more optimal way to think and hence increase survival.

Cool huh.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

It would be the ultimate irony if belief (whether this is the right word is debatable) in evolution was maladaptive.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Read them a while ago - it wasn't talking about nations, but communities within nations.

It is curious though, and presents a conundrum for the avid dogmatic evolutionary - in that they KNOW evolution is reponsible for us, yet if they follow evolution to the letter then they have to recognise that believing in ID is a more optimal way to think and hence increase survival.

Cool huh.

This does not mean that ID is correct or that evolution is wrong.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

This does not mean that ID is correct or that evolution is wrong.

I know. But it could imply that we actually function and survive "better" when we believe.

That said, perhaps a profound or devout belief in evolution or science is enough to fill the gap?

I'm not big on believing in just one or the other, I think they co-exist, so I probably don't meet the requirement either way.

 

[Niximus]

Read them a while ago - it wasn't talking about nations, but communities within nations.

It is curious though, and presents a conundrum for the avid dogmatic evolutionary - in that they KNOW evolution is reponsible for us, yet if they follow evolution to the letter then they have to recognise that believing in ID is a more optimal way to think and hence increase survival.

Cool huh.

Wouldn't national stats be more relevant. Larger sample size?

Regardless, Bogans are favored by evolution, you have 156 kids then theres a strong chance that you'll continue to pass on your genes. Doesn't make being a bogan 'more optimal'

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

I know. But it could imply that we actually function and survive "better" when we believe.

That said, perhaps a profound or devout belief in evolution or science is enough to fill the gap?

I'm not big on believing in just one or the other, I think they co-exist, so I probably don't meet the requirement either way.

So your are more of a Stephen Jay Gould than a Richard Dawkins.

I was also thinking that people should probably use the term ID carefully as it has a very specific meaning. ID only came into existence in the late 1980's to early 1990's. William Paley proposed a theory of design, but this is different from ID. ID is very political in nature. Ultimately it is a political tool of Christian fundamentalists.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Wouldn't national stats be more relevant. Larger sample size?

I don't think so. Because these are communities within developed nations that have no significant advantages resource wise to others within those nations - faith being one of th factors that raises their life expectancy above that of their countrymen.

Regardless, Bogans are favored by evolution, you have 156 kids then theres a strong chance that you'll continue to pass on your genes. Doesn't make being a bogan 'more optimal'

Yes, but the example I'm using increases life expectancy of an individual. IMO that makes it fair to say its the optimal result for an individual.

Theoretically it makes sense - if you don't fear death or see it as the end of existence, you can forego a lot of anxiety - stress is a major killer.

 

[Niximus]

I don't think so. Because these are communities within developed nations that have no significant advantages resource wise to others within those nations - faith being one of th factors that raises their life expectancy above that of their countrymen.

I would much like to scrutinise these studies but unfortunately with no source I cannot.

Yes, but the example I'm using increases life expectancy of an individual. IMO that makes it fair to say its the optimal result for an individual.

Theoretically it makes sense - if you don't fear death or see it as the end of existence, you can forego a lot of anxiety - stress is a major killer.

Life expectancy also isn't an evolutionary advantage unless you use it to procreate into old age.

 

[Contra Mundum]

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1105/darwin-debate-religion-evolution

 

[Karl Pilkington]

I would much like to scrutinise these studies but unfortunately with no source I cannot.

Cool I'll have a look and get back to you. I should point out again that faith was not the only contributing factor.

Life expectancy also isn't an evolutionary advantage unless you use it to procreate into old age.

You don't think?

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Scientifically, in this thread, we have established that the atoms that make up the body are eternal, right? And if those atoms are responsible for the 'soul' or consciousness, then that would mean that consciousness must also be eternal, evne if it is broken up or ceases to function in the way we are aware of it right now, no?

That's crap. If I get 2 eggs, 500g of flour, half a cup of milk, half a cup of sugar and 100g of butter, do I have a cake, or a few basic foodstuffs?

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Cool I'll have a look and get back to you. I should point out again that faith was not the only contributing factor.



You don't think?

It has more to do with fitness, which is survivability and fecundity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)

 

[Karl Pilkington]

That's crap. If I get 2 eggs, 500g of flour, half a cup of milk, half a cup of sugar and 100g of butter, do I have a cake, or a few basic foodstuffs?

I see your point. IMO though the soul isn't material, I was just playing devil's advocate.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

The epicenter of ID.

http://www.discovery.org/

 

[FIGJAM]

That's crap. If I get 2 eggs, 500g of flour, half a cup of milk, half a cup of sugar and 100g of butter, do I have a cake, or a few basic foodstuffs?

Conversely, the likes of Haeckel would have you believed that those raw ingredients would through blind indifference form into a complicated cake!

There is an intangible factor at play in the complication of all energy. It is an inate awareness that pervades the Universe. It is physically immesurable (yet!).

The concept of vital energy has gone out the window in science, because it is immeasurable physically. We have remnants of it in medicine by way of the term "vital signs", but it is simply now a reference to measurable physical life signs.

The concept of vitalism is not restricted to the esoteric. Some great quantum physicists have explained the nessessity for consciousness at a sub-atomic level. Max Planck and David Bohm have hinted as to the underlying awareness of everything.

Until we know anything about the vital plane, also known as the etheric plane, then we will know nothing of the mechanism for the leaps that occur in evolution.