|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is it intelligent to design evolvable species? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I believe that GOD created the universe.
I believe that He ordained all of the rules, those of physics, mutation, Natural Selection. I believe that He intuitively understands the relationship between gravity and all the other forces. I believe that He could create all that we see as our Universe through no more than wish and will. So is that ID? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
do you believe that it doesn't matter who did it?
do you believe that it could have been green aliens? do you believe that it could have been many designers?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
do you believe that it doesn't matter who did it? The end result is what we see, so something happened. Who did it is certainly and open question. I believe I know who did it and that person or entity (probably a better word) is the Creator, IMHO, GOD.
do you believe that it could have been green aliens? No.
do you believe that it could have been many designers? No I don't. But I do have a reason for that belief, one that I must admit is based on personal experience and could well be flawed. My general experience of design by committee has not been good. Unless there was one overriding mind, one clear concept of what was to be, I don't think we would see the consistency throughout the universe that seems to be apparent. If it was multiple designers I wouold expect to see greater variation at the most basic level, that some of the designers might have seen gravity as a repeller as opposed to attractor. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
given those responses I would say no, you are not an IDist.
of course I also note that the actual results bear more kinship to design by committee than by a single entity ... that would explain a lot
I wouold expect to see greater variation at the most basic level, that some of the designers might have seen gravity as a repeller as opposed to attractor. you mean like dark matter and dark energy? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Yeah, look at the hyena.
If that animal doesn't look like it was put together by a committee, I don't know what does!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
Thanks for the replies everyone. I'm still waiting for the real IDists though.
The thing is, I've been thinking of the damage creationists make to the term 'creation' and 'design'. The scientists of the past made great advances when they start to acknowledge that organisms were not created by 'poof' magic, but through a natural process. I think it was Ken Miller who quoted a priestess (or a scientist, can't remember) as saying that God is not like a pool player that needs ten shots to sink ten balls, but more like one that sinks all ten in just one shot. Along came creationists and IDists (who never want to be called creationists) and suddenly they want the ten-shot pool player back, for no reason. Probably it has something to do with the book they consult for everything. In short, if I were to be asked for an evidence for Intelligent Design, I would say that evolvability is intelligent design. Humans are just beginning to incorporate evolvability into technology. Nature does it 3.5 billion years ago. Then again, what prevents IDists from admitting that evolvability is intelligent design? ps: To Oooook:London... it's great. And expensive. And best viewed from the top of a red double-decker bus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
A contingent probability space.
quote: and that because of what Kant said,(Critique of Teleological Judgement @64 OF THE PRECULIAR CHARACTER OF THINGS AS NATURAL PURPOSES In order to se that a thing is possible as a purpose, that is to be forced to seek the causality of its origin, not in the mechanism of nature, but in a cause whose faculty of action is determined through concepts, it is requisite that the form be not possible according to mere natural laws, i.e. laws which can be cognized by us through the understanding alone when applied to objects of sense, but that even the empirical knowledge of ti as regards its cause and effect presupposes concepts of reason. This contingency of its form in all empirical natural laws in reference to reason affords a ground for regarding its causality as possible only through reason. For reason, which must cognize the necessity of every form of a natural product in order to comprehend even the conditions of its genesis, cannot assume such [natural] necessity in that particular given form. The causality of its origin is then referred to the faculty of acting in accordance with purposes (a will), and the object which can only thus be represented as possible is represented as a purpose.) This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-17-2005 12:18 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
and that's without even getting to the pseudo-penises that the females have (in one of the rare but not uncommon female dominated species).
yeah looks like the hindend people were working in centimeters and the front end people were working in inches and the neck people were in feets. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dsv Member (Idle past 4751 days) Posts: 220 From: Secret Underground Hideout Joined: |
If Intelligent Design is designing creatures that can evolve and adapt to their environment, does that mean extinct species are failed designs?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If Intelligent Design is designing creatures that can evolve and adapt to their environment, does that mean extinct species are failed designs? It's not the critters that were designed, but the system. The critters are nothing but byproducts and only incidental. The system works. It guarantees that should conditions change, critters will evolve to fit those changed conditions. Extinct species are not failed species but rather evidence that the design, the system, worked. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dsv Member (Idle past 4751 days) Posts: 220 From: Secret Underground Hideout Joined: |
Does that include humans?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Do you mean "Are humans simply a byproduct?" If so then yes, of course.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: A Device needs autonomy when you will not be nearby to handle or direct it. Thus, our planetary probes are largely autonomous, because direct control is technically impossible. On the other hand, applied to metaphysics, this would imply an absent, uncaring god. If you will not be close enough to direct a device, you will not be close enough to save it from danger either, and must be resigned to losses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
now there's a valid methodology and encompassing philosophy for raising children.
don't you have a challenge to answer? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
That will depend on a reanalysis of Mayr's 4 point dissection of Agassiz's viewpoint as he classed both Aggassiz's CLASSIFICATION and Lyell's book as a part of NATURAL THEOLOGY but even given this philosophical denial of typology say we still need some working tools that can show the falsity of thie view
quote:TOWARDS A NEW PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY p200 Lyell considered extintion to be in equilibrium with speciation etc.Mayr and Gould insist there is this wrongful confusion of ontogeny and phylogeny. I think Croizat's method provides the means to ending this end only Nelson did not use main massings. the four bullets by Mayr were(in his 76 book)1)rational plan of the universe 2)typological thinking 3)discontinuism 4)ontogenetic concept of evolution Gould/Eldredges' PE rereads this list and so does my reading of Croizat.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024