Intelligent Design or Evolution?

[evo]

The conceptual rhubric around "The Other" was developed by that negative theology dude Emmanuel Levinas. A very sophisticated thinker for a Christian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Levinas

Yes,i recently had to write a short paper on his 'face-to-face' idea.

Sounds like a good name for an Angels album.

 

[evo]

First hand knowledge is the best kind, but presents me with a conundrum - what if I don't exist?.

If you are in any doubt that you exist, then perhaps can I suggest that you revisit what you mean by the word.

 

[FIGJAM]

Sorry my gnostic brother - it was a spasm caused by your first sentence about the intersection between athiesm and religion. Uncle Ernst was trying to construct an athiest theology

Ah, I see!

I'm obviously not though. I have no interest in wasting my life reading the devolved thoughts of Hegel, Marx or Ernst.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Is anyone familiar with; Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestiges_of_the_Natural_History_of_Creation

I have not read it, but I am aware of its profound influence on Darwin and Wallace.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Ah, I see!

I'm obviously not though. I have no interest in wasting my life reading the devolved thoughts of Hegel, Marx or Ernst.

Its less about Marxism and more about a sort of critical history of "hope"

 

[Hodgepodge]

Some religions have changed their stances on many issues over time, as social norms and evidence came to light.

Have a read about the current Archbishop of Canterbury, he's a very clever and reasoned man who thinks the bible is almost irrelevant when dealing with today's social issues.

The core beliefs of the religion are still irrelevant. There is a certain probability that a creator exists, but there is no reason to believe that he is benevolent. I don't think there's a problem in believing that a superior being created the universe, because for all we know, it's true. But there is no reason to believe the being is a divine one.

 

[Hodgepodge]

Steve Jones, a prominent geneticist, believes that we (humans) may have reached the point of no longer evolving. I saw this guy in a public forum last week and he was very interesting.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4894696.ece

Genetic Engineering >>>> Evolution

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Genetic Engineering >>>> Evolution

Evidently, then, Mendel >>> Darwin.

Is Mendel >>> Crick & Watson?

 

[Hodgepodge]

Evidently, then, Mendel >>> Darwin.

Is Mendel >>> Crick & Watson?

That's for history to decide.

We don't need to evolve anymore anyway.

 

[Chief]

My knees, wrists, failing eyesight and eventually my prostate disagree with that.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

If we used genetic science to help ourselves evolve further - does that mean both ID and evolution are occurring simultaneously?

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

If we used genetic science to help ourselves evolve further - does that mean both ID and evolution are occurring simultaneously?

Evolution is simply a change in gene frequency over time. There is no reason why ID and evolution could not co-occur. In fact, would you not say that ID is a particular mechanism for evolution? It is evolution by means of natural selection that is in opposition to ID. In addition, you could also just say that genetic engineering is evolution by means of artificial selection. So maybe ID = artificial selection.

 

[Richo83]

If we used genetic science to help ourselves evolve further - does that mean both ID and evolution are occurring simultaneously?

Nope, ID implies design from above, this is design from within.

 

[FIGJAM]

Nope, ID implies design from above, this is design from within.

The etheric plane is within, not "above".

 

[Richo83]

The etheric plane is within, not "above".

Right, how foolish of me to forget this "force" present in all of us which has manifested existence, thank you figgy for showing us the way.

 

[FIGJAM]

Right, how foolish of me to forget this "force" present in all of us which has manifested existence, thank you figgy for showing us the way.

No wuckers!

 

[JavaBlue]

Let me walk you through another leap of faith.

15 Billion years ago there was nothing. NOTHING I TELL YOU. Just plain old run of the mill nothing.

Then in a nanosecond the first law of Thermodynamics was broken and all the matter and energy we have today appeared.

Then even though all this matter and energy appeared FOR NO REASON it expanded across 15 billion light years to create the known universe.

But all for no reason.

But hang on that's not even the beginning of your leap of faith.

Apparently hydrogen, helium and gravity was enough to pull together to form some stars. Then hang on because this one I love the most.

Hydrogen and Gravity caused fusion.

Stars exploded over time releasing heavier elements caused during the fusion that was going on, this matter came together with the help of accretion and made the planets. the Earth and of course our perfectly sized moon. By the way moons size, and then relative distance from the sun also perfectly eclipses our beloved warm friend too.

But the Earth was lifeless. Oh except that life then just suddenly appeared and once again that Thermodynamics thing, well we might just forget about that one for a minute too.

Oh and then evolution comes along and evolves male and females at exactly the same time, at exactly the same place, with all the organs, instruments and tools we need to get our ends wet.

WOW !!!

Now wouldn't you call that a leap of faith.

Obviously people must be able to download science degrees from creationist websites nowadays. Well done. And btw - why the new nick?

 

[Richo83]

Obviously people must be able to download science degrees from creationist websites nowadays. Well done. And btw - why the new nick?

For a scientist he sure doesn't seem it. The whole "isn't is lucky that everything fitted well" assumes that it's more than luck that life came about, forgetting the fact that the success rate of life in this universe is about a billion in one, which seems about right. If I am right, that forces of gravity and energy precede material existence, whatever happened happened under the laws of such, whatever happened can easily happen within the realms of scientific structures. The main ID argument is all seems too unlikely to be left upto scientific structures, they dismiss the power of those partly due to ignorance. Shame our scientific friend doesn't appreciate his field the way he should.

 

[Richo83]

No wuckers!

Figgy, if this plane has no consciousness it is pretty much equal to energy and gravity. If you're asking that there are forces behind existence then yes I agree with you, but the notion of a "designer" doesn't mean anything which preceded the big bang, it implies an actual designer. If one could direct me towards this I'd be happy to believe in this "designer". Until then, I'll stick with good ol undirected evolution thanks.

 

[FIGJAM]

The whole "isn't is lucky that everything fitted well" assumes that it's more than luck that life came about

Why is the assumption that the physical Universe is unconditioned perfectly acceptable?

forgetting the fact that the success rate of life in this universe is about a billion in one, which seems about right.

According to whom?

Haven't we found bacteria in a martian meteorite? If so, hardly evidence of a "billion to one shot".

If I am right, that forces of gravity and energy precede material existence

Nothing can come from nothing mate!

Something existed. It always existed. And it was organised!

whatever happened happened under the laws of such, whatever happened can easily happen within the realms of scientific structures.

Guesswork.

The main ID argument is all seems too unlikely to be left upto scientific structures, they dismiss the power of those partly due to ignorance.

The main ID arguments as I view them is that there are obvious examples of stasis, and sudden disappearance and replacement in the fossil records. Darwinists agree that this is the truth, because otherwise they wouldn't have evolved their theory to incorporate punctuated equilibrium (an impressive sounding band-aid to cover up the cracks in pure gradualism).

 

[Dont be a lemon]

I vote for evolution and Evolution

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

The main ID arguments as I view them is that there are obvious examples of stasis, and sudden disappearance and replacement in the fossil records. Darwinists agree that this is the truth, because otherwise they wouldn't have evolved their theory to incorporate punctuated equilibrium (an impressive sounding band-aid to cover up the cracks in pure gradualism).

Another critical ID argument, as hinted at in the OP, is that of irreducible complexity. In regards to the supposed holes in the fossil record this could simply be a case of us not yet finding these fossils as opposed to them not existing at all.

 

[HighettBomber]

There is plenty of evidence supporting evolution, there is none supporting ID. This is simple fact.

Science does not supply answers to every question, and often widely held theories are later disproven. But ID does not provide a reasonable answer to anything and is continually shown to be not necessary. Why is it so hard for some people to accept this?

 

[KissStephanie]

Which theory do you subscribe to?

Evolution.

I do not believe in creationism, including the Young Earth theory. I do not believe in intelligent design involving divine intervention.

Intelligent design is a promotional strategy. It's legitimacy is based on a theory from a mathematician (Bill Dembski) and a biochemist (Michael Behe). Neither Dembski or Behe have published their theory in any peer received journals, which is not surprising because they have just revisited old creationism arguments. When Dubya endorsed intelligent design in 2005, and stated that it should be taught in schools alongside evolution, was just another reason to dismiss the theory.

 

[tesseract]

There is plenty of evidence supporting evolution, there is none supporting ID. This is simple fact.

Science does not supply answers to every question, and often widely held theories are later disproven. But ID does not provide a reasonable answer to anything and is continually shown to be not necessary. Why is it so hard for some people to accept this?

ID does not provide a reasonable answer to you. It does to others. Where is this evidence of yours? It is only unproven theory! Your willing to believe it's proof because you don't agree with the other side of the argument.