A thought on Intelligence behind Design

She doesn't support my "point of view", although she presents examples which make human minds seem rather insignificant as products of evolution (or as the most important one we must consider).Interestingly enough ID theorists have kept her as much in the closet as they possibly can. Behe oddly dismissed her theories in his book by saying evos aren't embracing it fully. Uhhhh, doesn't the same go for ID???It could be said she offers an alternative to ID. Certainly her theories suggest that if there is a "design" to be seen, it is more credibly the result of organisms organizing themselves to there best mutual advantage.I find her work dealing with prokaryotes, and her hypothesis on how prokaryotes organized themselves into eukaryotes extremely plausible. Her further claims regarding the importance of symbiotic relationships are interesting, but perhaps overstretched.But none of this is really important here. The point I was making is that there are examples of other products of the evolutionary process, which replicate themselves and adapt to the environment. How about stellar "evolution", or how about heat exchange/control mechanisms within the geosphere (ie weather, currents, plate tectonics)? There are many unprecedented qualities that have arisen during the evolution of life. I won't argue that the brain, especially the level of thought available to humans, is some insignificant development. It's big.But why are you latching on to its development like history is done? Maybe evolution has some more important things to develop, especially if humans choose to push outside the boundaries of our planet or solar system.That we are the "end" or "purpose" of evolution, or that we are a model of what must have begun the evolutionary process (I guess because we can comprehend it?) just seems an arbitrary choice.By the way, I wasn't knocking how you used the gas stove analogy. I was simply saying that to focus on ideas, or the human brain is the same thing as focusing only on the creation of the gas stove. I was assuming that you thought the human mind generated more than a gas stove. That was part of the point.Anyway, I am willing to drop all of the arguments above for sake of arguing about the only thing that matters.WHAT are we to do with your observation? WHERE do we go as scientists to possibly (dis)prove what you have said? And if there is no way to (dis)prove it, WHY are we discussing it?------------------
holmes

I used "organized" as a shorthand for Margulis's more complex theory. While at times, Margulis's side rants (or sermonizing) sound suspiciously like teleology (through the life will of Gaia) or anthropomorphism, the meat of her theory is not.They naturally organize under environmental conditions. For example non-oxygen breathing organisms would naturally die out when exposed to the atmosphere, but survive under or within layers of oxygen breathing organisms.It should be noted this part of her theory is not really controversial anymore. Genetic profiling is proving her right as parts of cells orginally thought to be just that (parts of cells) actually have their own DNA. It is becoming apparent that eukaryotes are likely the integration of multiple prokaryotic organisms which eventually lost their separate "identity."Again, this is why I find ID theorist's ignoring her theories very troubling. It offers other NATURAL mechanisms for the evolution of properties we see.------------------
holmes