Evolution vs. Intelligent Design/Creationism

[Mole]

But let's face it - Charles hid the Origin of Species for 21 years.

Some say he was afraid of his wife.

But we seem to forget he was completely ignorant of how the evolution of species occurred.

I mean he just didn't know. And as it flew in the face of our creation story, perhaps he thought discretion was he better part of valour.

Yes, we had to wait about 100 years before James Watson and Francis Crick discovered how the evolution of species occurred.

Yes, it was the discovery of DNA that put the origin of species beyond reasonable doubt.

So to argue today for Creationism or Intelligent Design is a lost cause.

 

[Owl]

Yes, it was the discovery of DNA that put the origin of species beyond reasonable doubt.

So to argue today for Creationism or Intelligent Design is a lost cause.

Beyond reasonable doubt?

I'm not saying evolution is logically impossible, (although it may be--if it is I've not detangled the metaphysical issues needed to show that, nor do I know of anyone who has), but it's improbable. The only good reason to believe in evolution, (as it is popularly conceived), would be if one were certain that universal naturalism supported by material monism were true; i.e., despite evolution's low probablility based on what we know about how matter and DNA behaves, there is no logical alternative, and so evolution must be true. But there is good reason to believe that both material monism and universal naturalism are false, and there are other logically possible, more probable, alternatives.

I find it very easy to doubt the veracity of evolution. In fact, I think arguing for evolution is a lost cause, but that is another matter.

 

[Krwheel]

Ya know I read through some of these threads and see arguments about Evolution vs. Creationism, There is a God vs. There is no god, and I kinda wonder what the point is. Does one side or the other really matter that much to any of you?

What I tend to think is important is how have you developed your value system? And by value system, I don't mean, what you believe in, I mean your moral code for life. How do you decide whether or not you should do something? That's what I'm interested in! I don't really give a rats @$$ if you believe in God or not, I don't care about what you think about how we got here, because none of that has any effect on me whatsoever. Now what does affect me, is what moral code you want to live by and what moral code you expect society to live by and accept. Let's talk about that!

 

[Mole]

I find it very easy to doubt the veracity of evolution.

Yes, you are quite right. I was easy to doubt the origin of species before James and Francis discovered DNA.

In fact there is some reason to think that Charles himself doubted the origin of species in that he hid his discovery for 21 years.

But thanks to James and Francis we now know the origin of species and it is digital, just like the computer in front of you, encoded in the DNA.

And we can now precisely measure and map the relationships of all species.

And guess what! We all come from the same DNA whether you are a banana or Mr Owl.

All of us, all life, is intimately and forever connected. We all share precisely and exactly the same DNA.

We are indeed one.

 

[Owl]

And we can now precisely measure and map the relationships of all species.

All of us, all life, is intimately and forever connected. We all share precisely and exactly the same DNA.

We are indeed one.

Similarity in structure does not entail similarity in origin or common ancestry.

It may be the result of a common plan.

 

[Mole]

Ya know I read through some of these threads and see arguments about Evolution vs. Creationism, There is a God vs. There is no god, and I kinda wonder what the point is. Does one side or the other really matter that much to any of you?

What I tend to think is important is how have you developed your value system? And by value system, I don't mean, what you believe in, I mean your moral code for life. How do you decide whether or not you should do something? That's what I'm interested in! I don't really give a rats @$$ if you believe in God or not, I don't care about what you think about how we got here, because none of that has any effect on me whatsoever. Now what does affect me, is what moral code you want to live by and what moral code you expect society to live by and accept. Let's talk about that!

Well if we all share the same DNA, it makes nonsense of anthropologic typology.

As anthropologic typology is the division of the human species into races. And it is called racism.

And psychologic typology, MBTI, was the sister of anthropologic typology.

And the anthropologic typologists lost WW II, so they transferred their theory to psychologic typology, MBTI. In much the same way that Creationists transferred their beliefs to Intelligent Design.

So just as anthropologic typology divides the human species into races, psychologic typology divides the human species into mental types.

Both typologies serve the same function of dividing the human species into types.

And we are divided up to avoid facing our common humanity. Just as Jews and Americans were divided out in Mumbai for torture and murder.

 

[lowtech redneck]

Intelligent design does not necessitate a creator. It could be aliens.

Ah, but who created the aliens?

3 guesses why I feel like watching Maximum Overdrive now...and the first two don't count.

 

[Mole]

Similarity in structure does not entail similarity in origin or common ancestry.

It may be the result of a common plan.

DNA give birth to DNA.

It is a result of natural selection.

If you have a copy of the plan, I would be delighted to see it.

In fact if you could show us such a plan, it would make you most famous person in the world.

 

[Owl]

Ah, but who created the aliens?

3 guesses why I feel like watching Maximum Overdrive now...and the first two don't count.

1) You're bored.

2) Warren Buffet offered to pay you a million dollars if you watch it right now.

3) I don't know. Never heard of it.

If you have a copy of the plan, I would be delighted to see it.

In fact if you could show us such a plan, it would make you most famous person in the world.

I'd like to see it too. There are others mapping it out as we type.

 

[nozflubber]

dudes, ID has as much to do with the laws of the universe as it does "how the frig did this happen here on this rock, Earth?" ... so it isn't even about "aliens"... more like a Matrix-esque, Neo coming to a grand architect and asking "Who set-up this shit and why?"

The carbon atom and the water molecule alone should fucking baffle you endlessly. I'd list the unique properties of both but I'm toasted atm

 

[Nihilen]

Does anyone with a critical mind really take creationists seriously ?

 

[Venom]

But there is good reason to believe that both material monism and universal naturalism are false, and there are other logically possible, more probable, alternatives.

really???....im dying to see this new "evidence" for a non naturalistic universe...it must of slipped out of my morning paper

Secular Creationism.

You're really going to try and peddle that bullshit here? its intrinsically a religious idea. no matter what fucking name you give it. If people were created, than there has to be a designer with some sort of magical powers! It is INHERENTLY RELIGIOUS.

Secondly, if you're referring to people like michael behe: he's been dealt with redundantly. He was soundly refuted by Kenneth Miller (a catholic i might add) in that 2005 trial. Behe basically wants the standards of science to be so low that astrology is acceptable in public school.

 

[Mole]

Does anyone with a critical mind really take creationists seriously ?

God help me, but yes I do.

I take them seriously because they are opposed to Social Darwinism.

The Creationist recognised that Social Darwinism taught the survival of the fittest and it would mean every man for himself.

The Creationists recognised that Social Darwinism was the exact opposite of love your neighbour as yourself.

The Creationists also recognised that Darwin himself did not know the mechanism of evolution - and of course he didn't until the discovery of DNA.

The Creationists did make a strategic mistake in confusing Social Darwinism with the Origin of Species.

And so the Creationists came to oppose Evolution rather than Social Darwinism.

So although the hearts of the Creationists were in the right place, they were wrong headed.

 

[lowtech redneck]

3) I don't know. Never heard of it.

That's too bad, it was a pretty cool movie. Ah well.

 

[Venom]

Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? (Addendum B to Review of David Foster's The Philosophical Scientists)

this is an extensive treating of MANY creationist sources that try and peddle the "argument from probability"

problems: 1) many creationist "want-a-be" "mathematicians" aren't legitimate PUBLISHING biologists and thus dont really know where to begin when they make up numbers. 2) natural selection is a kind of "force of nature" rather than it being totally random chaos. The planets in the solar system didn't randomly end up where they are. They got there via a natural process that arises inevitably from mass bending space-time (ie: an example of mindless nature giving rise to order). Evolution is a natural process that yields very different results than pure randomness.

the biggest problem:

"There is still the same, single, fundamental problem with all these statistical calculations, one that I mention in my review of Foster: no one knows what the first life was. People like Morowitz can try to calculate what is, at a minimum, possible, and laboratory experiments, like that which discovered the powers of tetrahymena (see Addenda C), can approach a guess, but these guesses still do not count as knowledge, and it is not sound to claim that simply because we don't know what it was, therefore we can't assume there was such a simple life form. And even if we accept such an argument, to go from there to "god" is essentially a god-of-the-gaps argument. When we did not know how the bumble-bee flew, was that an adequate ground for positing god as the answer, or was it instead cause for further scientific investigation aimed at finding out the natural explanation? All of science is the result of choosing the latter approach. Once there was a time when nothing was explained. Since then, everything which has been explained has been found to have a natural, not a divine, explanation. Although this does not prove that all future explanations will be of like kind, it shows that it is not at all unreasonable to expect this--and it is not a very reliable bet to expect the opposite."

 

[Tayshaun]

There is no knowledge about the origins of life, but the ID answer is way too convenient.

I cannot help think the intelligence the ID proponents present is an intelligence man created in his own image (like God IMO). It helps give intelligibility to the universe and a reason - even if unknown - for our presence. Seeking meaning for life in such a way is anthropocentric at best. This, if anything, reveals a lack of perspective.

This debate is virtually inexistent in most of Europe.

 

[nozflubber]

I cannot help think the intelligence the ID proponents present is an intelligence man created in his own image (like God IMO). It helps give intelligibility to the universe and a reason - even if unknown - for our presence. Seeking meaning for life in such a way is anthropocentric at best.

There is nothing inherently anthropomorphic about appealing to Aristotle's "proper forms" when attempting to understand the sctructure of our universe. There is a unique form to the Carbon atom and the Water molecule, but that doesn't mean that the carbon atom "wants to share it's electrons".

Stop confusing the verbage of science with intelligible metaphysics.

 

[Venom]

There is nothing inherently anthropomorphic about appealing to Aristotle's "proper forms" when attempting to understand the sctructure of our universe. There is a unique form to the Carbon atom and the Water molecule, but that doesn't mean that the carbon atom "wants to share it's electrons".

Stop confusing the verbage of science with intelligible metaphysics.

linguistic superstition. all this crap about how every aspect of our universe had to be separately special and fined tuned at every level. Its actually quite simple: geometry. The geometry of space time is the most fundamental source of why anything is what it is.

the boiling point of water was originally thought to simply be a brute fact. obviously its just the inevitable result of MORE fundamental laws pertaining to pressure, chemistry, quantum mechanics and such. Those are also based on even MORE fundamental facts about the physical structures of matter and the behavior of energy. It all reduces to patterns and geometry (ie each little thing isnt specially engineered with a purpose of function)

 

[Owl]

really???....im dying to see this new "evidence" for a non naturalistic universe...it must of slipped out of my morning paper

You're reading the wrong papers.

Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? (Addendum B to Review of David Foster's The Philosophical Scientists)

this is an extensive treating of MANY creationist sources that try and peddle the "argument from probability"

problems: 1) many creationist "want-a-be" "mathematicians" aren't legitimate PUBLISHING biologists and thus dont really know where to begin when they make up numbers. 2) natural selection is a kind of "force of nature" rather than it being totally random chaos. The planets in the solar system didn't randomly end up where they are. They got there via a natural process that arises inevitably from mass bending space-time (ie: an example of mindless nature giving rise to order). Evolution is a natural process that yields very different results than pure randomness.

the biggest problem:

"There is still the same, single, fundamental problem with all these statistical calculations, one that I mention in my review of Foster: no one knows what the first life was. People like Morowitz can try to calculate what is, at a minimum, possible, and laboratory experiments, like that which discovered the powers of tetrahymena (see Addenda C), can approach a guess, but these guesses still do not count as knowledge, and it is not sound to claim that simply because we don't know what it was, therefore we can't assume there was such a simple life form. And even if we accept such an argument, to go from there to "god" is essentially a god-of-the-gaps argument. When we did not know how the bumble-bee flew, was that an adequate ground for positing god as the answer, or was it instead cause for further scientific investigation aimed at finding out the natural explanation? All of science is the result of choosing the latter approach. Once there was a time when nothing was explained. Since then, everything which has been explained has been found to have a natural, not a divine, explanation. Although this does not prove that all future explanations will be of like kind, it shows that it is not at all unreasonable to expect this--and it is not a very reliable bet to expect the opposite."

hmmm... how to respond.

The linked author admits his own ignorance, and he is right to believe that we cannot infer that God exists from ignorance. But this sword cuts both ways, and neither can he infer that his own metaphysical assumptions are true. For all he knows, increased knowledge of the physical world may increase the improbability of abiogenisis and any form of macro evolution. And this points to one of the limits of science. Science, like religion, does not examine its own assumptions, and, as the author makes clear, it's these assumptions that will shape how one answers the question of origins. Philosophy is the discipline devoted to the critical examination of assumptions, and so the question of origins ultimately lies within the domain of philosophy.

Alas, I have to work now. Perhaps I'll be back to edit this post. Perhaps we can make another thread dedicated to the God of the gaps. (BC, I believe you've mentioned this before). Anyway, I bid thee farewell.

 

[Jack Flak]

But let's face it - Charles hid the Origin of Species for 21 years.

Some say he was afraid of his wife.

But we seem to forget he was completely ignorant of how the evolution of species occurred.

I mean he just didn't know. And as it flew in the face of our creation story, perhaps he thought discretion was he better part of valour.

Yes, we had to wait about 100 years before James Watson and Francis Crick discovered how the evolution of species occurred.

Yes, it was the discovery of DNA that put the origin of species beyond reasonable doubt.

So to argue today for Creationism or Intelligent Design is a lost cause.

The fact that humans develop primitive gills as embryos kinda sealed the deal for me.