Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design, Can They Be Reconciled Instead? Options

[tnemelckram]

Hi All!

I am a committed Evolutionist who just watched a show about the hair pull in the Dover School District over whether Intelligent Design was a competing and valid scientific theory with a proper place in high school Biology text books. It led to a court decision that vindicated Darwin. For the sake of being a Devil's Advocate, and in the American spirit of fair play, here's an attempt fit Intelligent Design into Evolution and end the controversy by destroying the notion that they are mutually exclusive. I don't buy my own following theory myself. It's just an attempt to find the maximum amount of scientific merit that Intelligent Design could ever possibly have, and hope it gets kicked around real good like some kind of luckless football.

A. Stated most simply or as a slogan - Evolution Is Intelligent Design.

1. Intelligence uses logic. Evolution logically explains the development of species including man. Surely an intelligent designer would put such a logical system in place.

2. Intelligence recognizes the difference between better and worse and logically strives to make things better as time goes on. Evolution says that strong species prevail over the weak as the result of a continuous process of improvement. Surely an intelligent designer would put in place a systemic process that only goes in one direction - continuous improvement over time.

3. Intelligence seeks to accomplish its ends with the least amount of effort by putting in place systems such as machines that do not require constant attention as they perform some basic task. Evolution rules out the intervention of God or some other intelligent designer in its progress and instead says that species develop though a self-driven system of natural selection. Surely an Intelligent Designer would put such a "fire and forget" system in place instead of one that requires his constant attention and intervention, and then would not waste a lot of time meddling with a process that is working as intended.

4. According to the Intelligent Designers, their God is more than just intelligent. He is also good and not malicious. Through Evolution, humans have been able to answer the question of where they came from. That question is the natural result of the abstract intellectual curiosity that Intelligent Designers say makes humans special or some sort of exception. A good God would not have given us the intelligence to be curious about where we came from and then torture us by making the answer impossible to find. That would be a malicious God instead.

5. Their God being both intelligent and good, Intelligent Designers express awe over the elegance and beauty of what He has created, in particular man, and the elegance and beauty of the way God does his Work. Points 1, 2 and 3 above show that Evolution is an elegant and beautiful process that has produced results having those same qualities. Evolution works in the same manner that they would expect from their God.

B. This "theory" knocks the pins out from under the key points that Intelligent Designers really want to make or prove.

1. You have to toss out the Book of Genesis and Bishop Usher's 4004 BC. It took 4 billion years with homo sapiens appearing what, about 250,000 years ago.

2. God or some other Intelligent Designer did not intervene to produce man. We are just the current end result of a "fire and forget" Evolutionary process.

3. A lot of mystery is stripped away from God. If all an Intelligent Designer has done is the design, then he only needed intelligence to do it, and did not require any of the other omniscient powers usually attributed to God. Moreover, humans strive toward logical processes that produce constant improvements with minimal effort, and have done this countless times. That suggests the Designer has lot in common with us.

4. The best possible scientific result for Intelligent Design would be acceptance of one or two small parts of it as minor subordinates to Evolution. If an Intelligent Designer implemented Evolution's processes, then Darwin and his successors have provided a comprehensive scientific explanation of how that process works and produced the results that we perceive. Only a few loose ends remain that require further scientific inquiry. Assuming that one or more parts of Intelligent Design Theory are found to have scientific merit, science still only needs to fill a few 150 year old niches in Evolution which have not affected its integrity in the meantime. With usefulness limited to empty niches, it would be fitted within and reconciled with long established, internally self-supported science. Scientific acceptance of one or two sub-concepts would at least toss their scientists some bones. This footnote digresses on the only thing that troubles me about evolution, and how part of ID might fit to fill that void(1).

5. Science concerns itself with how things work. Why they exist is for religion or philosophy. The advocates of Intelligent Design attack Evolution from the outside with claims made in such broad terms that the two are become mutually inconsistent; it's either one or the other, thus they hope to displace Evolution and replace it with a new thing that has God as the Designer. . To do all of that they must advance as science a reason why this Intelligent Designer chose to do it in the first place and then why He did it they way He did. He is not "intelligent" if he does not have free will in making those choices, which leads to the inevitable question of "why he made the choices he did. This could be enough in and of itself to dismiss Intelligent Design as a Scientific Theory.

C. Evolution has practical value because it explains processes, results and in general everything that we can actually experience and observe. If Intelligent Design is part of it, then we do not experience and observe that part so it has, at best, very limited practical value.
There is an analogy here to Quantum Mechanics in general and its Uncertainty Principle in particular. My house is held up by a steel beam frame. Uncertainty tells us that we cannot determine the current location of the atoms that compose those beams, and at the same time determine their path (and thus their next location). Thus those beams' past, present and future qualities such as strength and location can only be determined to a degree of probability, not with certainty. That is interesting, but inconsequential. All I ask is for those beams to be in whatever location with whatever strength they need to keep this shack from falling on my head. That's all I have ever been able to see and feel them doing, what I perceive now, and what I expect in the future. Quantum Mechanics has no practical effect on anything large enough for us to perceive, which means just about everything..
But at least Quantum Mechanics has a few practical applications and uses in ways too small for us to perceive, such as the operation of the tiny silicon components in this here computer.

__________________________
(1) Although the human brain is a product of evolution, we know very little about how it works. We do know that when its enormous capabilities are compared to every other evolutionary result, including our own bodies, the difference is a statistical aberration so huge that it passes understanding. To me, Evolution fails to explain why it started to give this one organ such excessive and exclusive favor say about 250,000 years ago. It may never be able to explain, because for several reasons, this adaptation seems more like something that occurred totally outside of evolutionary process instead as an exception within it.

(a) It went far beyond any improvement necessary for the survival of the species when self-awareness, abstract reasoning and long term memory were added. Every other species has survived without these brain powers.

(B) This appears to be a singular occurrence that has not been followed by any other species, in particular certain monkeys that are similar and well-positioned. One would think that there would at least be be signs that they are. Not only that, but the rest of our bodies, in particular the other organs, still generally resemble and function like other species, with no marked difference to make them better. It's the brain that allows us to live a relatively long life.

© All evolution seems to occur at a slow, regular pace, with the physical changes in appearance also being gradual and regular. This results in small increases in capability that bring with them a small comparative advantage that is proportionate to the timing and degree of the physical changes. On the other hand, our brain seems to have developed much quicker and did so in one spurt. The physical change was not gradual or regular because it added a unique and inordinate comparative advantage over all other species. Such big changes over short time is the opposite of the evolutionary normal relationship, which is small change over long time.

(d) Evolutionary adaptions are triggered by a specific problem or need. Their sole purpose is to solve that problem or meet that need. The quickest way to do that, while using the least amount of energy, is to only do what is specifically and strictly necessary for that purpose.
Predators depend on speed, camouflage and eyesight to catch prey. Prey depend on the same things to avoid predators. This drives a continuous cycle of specific eye, color and speed adaptations for the purpose of making theirs better than the competition's, which is also is the limit - an eye adaptation will not continue until the critter has the best eyes on the planet. They won't change their tails or kidneys too just for kicks. Although being smarter would surely make them better predators or prey, that is not a good enough reason for Evolution to provide more brain processing power.

(e) The explosion in human brain power was general, unfocused, and disregarded thes rules of Evolution that seem to require specificity, purpose, expedience and efficiency. While I am sure that 250,000 years ago homo sapiens had very specific problems and needs that centered on basic survival, Evolution hasn't assisted the survival of any other species by increasing intelligence. That's probably because basic survival is a very general problem composed of many smaller specific problems like bad eyesight or vulnerability to a certain disease, and Evolution requires specific smaller issues addressable in unique ways that will only serve that purpose but not others. Brain power itself is not such a solution due to an amorphous nature that defies all confinement, let alone a unique purpose. So this has to be the first and only time that Evolution took on a general problem and/or solved one with an adaptation that has general and unlimited uses. Then Evolution did not follow its pattern of doing the minimum amount needed to solve the problem, and doing so by some modest adaptation. Instead it went overboard in both respects. Homo Sapiens was probably already the smartest critter around, so a modest intelligence boost is enough to turn this existing competitive advantage into total dominance that assureds survival. Evolution always stops when critters obtain some single and slight competitive advantage over just their competitors, but in this case it first resulted in a brain that wasstill multi-use and best, now even better. The process didn't stop there like a normal adaptation should, instead it continued up till now, with no sign of stopping. The quantity of the improvement is 10 times more than we use or even understand today, while normal Evolution ends when physical change is just enough to produce a small comparative advantage. Finally, normal Evolution doesn't do surpluses, let alone tenfold ones.

(f) So the human brain developed in a pattern that is so inconsistent with evolution that perhaps it occurred outside of and independent of Evolution, or independently influenced Evolution from the outside in the matter. I think the explanation will be neither divine nor otherworldly. For example, perhaps a chance encounter with a chemical 250,000 years ago caused a reaction that produced a beneficial mutation which our science can explain.

)g) In the meantime, if the Intelligent Designers count this among their anomalies, I can accept is as such, but not as something that raises any serious question about the rest of it.

[lunk]

Hmmn,
the most intelligent design method,
is trial and error, if time, is not a factor.

But "intelligent design" is really just a time saving method,
instead of trial and error, for proof of reliance.

So really, unintelligent design, is evolution!

Though, this is the most intelligent way,
to make sure, something will function,
in an unknown environment, for sure.

I think the wing of the airplane,
was designed through trial and error,
so there should be, a more intelligent way,
of designing one
...or two.

perhaps, based on this, non-evolutionary (but still evolving) idea:
(you will need to log-on to read this link)

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10781781

[tnemelckram]

Hi Lunk!

Though, this is the most intelligent way,
to make sure, something will function,
in an unknown environment, for sure.

Maybe there's an Intelligent Experimenter instead, doing an Intelligent Experiment.

But since he's using trial and error, he obviously doesn't know what the f u c k he's doing. Neither perfect nor omniscient.

SO he sure ain't God!

Evolution is Intelligent Experimentation! SO There!

[Omega892R09]

I could go through your posting point by point but that would take up acres of space to treat each one with the depth and breadth required so I won't. Instead I'll make brief comment or two and cite works that will help explain further. In particular WRT the comments highlighted in red.

2. Intelligence recognizes the difference between better and worse and logically strives to make things better as time goes on. Evolution says that strong species prevail over the weak as the result of a continuous process of improvement. Surely an intelligent designer would put in place a systemic process that only goes in one direction - continuous improvement over time.

No evolution is about the survival of those who best adapt to conditions of habitat and thus survive long enough to have progeny. The process is not about improvement as such for there is no intention behind evolution. Creationists, wrongly, consider humans as the pinnacle of evolution. This is not the case, humans are just that branch of anthrapoids that has progressed the furthest in terms of thought and living modes.

Throughout the history of evolution many well adapted and seemingly, at the time, definitive organisms have become extinct for one reason or another. As the planet ages it becomes less resiliant to perturbations of the complex systems that support life as we know it. That is why the current perturbation of the carbon cycle could be so detrimental to us. The earth's systems that try to maintain a balance may well decide that we are too costly and shed us. Then some other organism will evolve to fill the niche.

(d) Evolutionary adaptions are triggered by a specific problem or need. Their sole purpose is to solve that problem or meet that need. The quickest way to do that, while using the least amount of energy, is to only do what is specifically and strictly necessary for that purpose.

Evolution always has to start from what is. Hence the step by step way that organs and structures evolve. A designer can chose from a range of known technologies and often parts. Evolution does not work like this. With evolution existing parts become, over time, adapted to new conditions.

This is exemplified by the whales, including dolphins, which have evolved from land creatures who returned to the water, much as Hippos are doing today. The forward limbs became flippers, tails became flukes and hind limbs atrophied until they are held within the creatures body tissue, are not connected to the rest of the skeleton and not externally visible. This is an example of vestigial organs – those things so fatal to creationist arguments.

I would suggest a read of Richard Dawkins 'Climbing Mount Improbable' and for anti-creationist material, 'Unweaving the Rainbow'.

Climbing Mount Improbable

Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

(e) The explosion in human brain power was general, unfocused, and disregarded thes rules of Evolution that seem to require specificity, purpose, expedience and efficiency. While I am sure that 250,000 years ago homo sapiens had very specific problems and needs that centered on basic survival, Evolution hasn't assisted the survival of any other species by increasing intelligence.

The hominid history goes back considerably further than that. Back to about 6.6 million years IIRC.
Over that time it has been the evolution of tool making and using abilities that began the cranial development and then hunting provided a spur to language development from the need for precise co-ordination between hunters in overcoming the large prey. It is becoming increasingly understood that as humanoids spread across continents that herds of large prey animal became extinct, as did the other predators that hunted those animals. The discovery of, and ability to control, fire also helped by cooking, cleaning out pelts for clothes and even hunting too. Humanoids long since used fire as a tool to scare animals into traps. That takes brain power and organisation of a different order to casual hunting-gathering. Language and then pictures as records or explanatory devices continued to evolve and turned into culture. Cultural wars are ancient history too.


For a reverse trip backwards through evolution is provided in another book by Richard Dawkins 'The Ancestor's Tale' this is not a quick read but very worth it. Stretch to the hardback version if you can as the paperback would soon fall apart.

The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution

It is being currently proposed that Dolphins are warded special status in recognition of their high intelligence.

Another creature that displays considerable intelligence is the Octopus which belongs to a very ancient order.

There is an analogy here to Quantum Mechanics in general and its Uncertainty Principle in particular. My house is held up by a steel beam frame. Uncertainty tells us that we cannot determine the current location of the atoms that compose those beams...

I think that you will find that the uncertainty principle applies to sub-atomic entities such as electrons and in this context not particles but wave functions.

[Omega892R09]

Neither perfect nor omniscient.

SO he sure ain't God!

No Intelligent Designer would have given humans an Appendix!

Neither would one have put an entertainment complex in a sewage works! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

[lunk]

Everybody wants to blame somebody else for the problems in the world.
Who would even conceive of making something so disastrous, as the universe?
With all the pain and suffering in the world, who would even respect anyone who even contributed to making the universe.

We really ought to have complete contempt for any one who made the universe.
But there is another interpretation, perhaps to be "all knowing" one must experience all experiences, and all experiences, are experienced from different individuals, because we all are different individuals, experiencing and reacting to different experiences. And one can't be all knowing, if there is an experience left yet, to experience.

An athiest, can not experience the same thing as a religious person may,
and vice-versa, So somehow to be all knowing one must be all living things.

Now, the theory of evolution, can be seen,
as the religious experience of the atheist.

Taking evolution as a science, can lead to the belief that the only way to survive is to eliminate the inferior.
The definition of inferior, in this world of economies, is lack of money.
So for the rich, (superior) to survive into the future, the poor (inferior)
must be eliminated, as the poor, will still breed and eventually take over from the rich...

Now this thought runs counter to experiencing all possible experiences, as by eliminating another life form, leads to less experiences.

So is evolution a religion?
A belief system, that leads one toward an unnatural action?

Intelligent design is not the opposite of evolution.
They may be the same thing.

Even with all its' fall backs, evolution, is still the simplest design,
for an ever changing system, if time is not a factor.

There was a story about 2 deaf parents,
who were recommended aborting their baby,
because it could be born without the ability to hear.
(they could not believe what they were hearing!)

But that is eugenics, which is based on the theory of evolution,
survival of the fattest,
by their intelligent elimination,
of the starving workers.

...and the world is in such a mess,
because of this perversion of the religion of evolution.

There are signs of humans similar to ourselves from 8 million years ago.
Darwin first said that humans were only 10,000 years old!
(it is now increased to 3-4 hundred thousand)
And before that, our ancestors were just missing links.

(and everyone knows about missing links, these days)

[Sanders]

Something I wrote many years ago - a review of Darwin's Black Box, a book by Behe.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050406084134/..._response.shtml

[tnemelckram]

HI Omega!

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

I was trying to reconcile a thing I accept as established science and fact (Evolution) with something I do not accept because it is neither science nor fact (Intelligent Design)"(ID"). That's really hard to do when the ID advocates present the two as mutually exclusive because that's the only way to reach their real goal of replacing Evolution with ID (in which, of course, they require their God to be the Designer). Even before beginning that's hopeless so I cut it down to:

(1) Find some small open question that Evolution hasn't satisfactorily answered. Without that, there's no need in the first place for further work, let alone a new theory like ID.
(2) Fill that small crack in Evolution with putty made out of a few bits and pieces from ID.
(3) Toss the remaining 90% of ID out the window, and along with it, all of the larger religious points that the ID advocates are really trying to make.

Having started with that rubric, I was bound and determined to find something to Post, no matter how hard it stretched and strained even my own credulity. That's asking for trouble and a possible tortured result that deserves to be kicked around like a football. Your kicks scored goals, but since I bear responsibility for trying to defend my "Creation", I'm not leaving the pitch yet.

1.

No evolution is about the survival of those who best adapt to conditions of habitat and thus survive long enough to have progeny. . . . . (h)umans are just that branch of anthrapoids that has progressed the furthest in terms of thought and living modes.

I agree. Evolution is driven by inability to use thought and living modes to adapt to the conditions in the habitat as a means of survival. Animals can't do that, so evolution tries to solve their survival problem through physical changes that give them what they need. Humans have been able to master the habitat. Actually, that mastery probably rises to the level of a substitue for Evolution. Humans may have reached the point where they have little or no need for it to survive. When a species reaches this point, Evolution is certainly slowed way down and probably won't start at all without a survival need demanding an adaptation.


2.

The process is not about improvement as such for there is no intention behind evolution.

I agree that there is no such intention. However, I don't see how that lack of intention is logically related to what Evolution in fact always does, so I disagree that its process is not about improvement. Evolutionary adaptations try to cure deficiencies in a species that are posing a threat to its survival. Curing a deficiency is by definition an improvement, regardless of whether it works or just an attempt that fails.

3.

Creationists, wrongly, consider humans as the pinnacle of evolution.

I agree that we are not the pinnacle of evolution. Either we will evolve higher in our present form, evolve into some different form that is even better, or become extinct to be replaced by something better. So with evolution being a continuous process, we haven't reached the pinnacle yet and never will.

However, I do think that humans are the pinnacle of evolution as of today. So the Creationists are right as far as that goes, but for the wrong reason. Their wrong reason is that our superior capabilities making us top dog today are a gift from a God. The right reason is that we are the highest form that Evolution has produced so far.


4.

A designer can chose from a range of known technologies and often parts. Evolution does not work like this. With evolution existing parts become, over time, adapted to new conditions.

I agree with all of this, but the first sentence suggests a need to clarify something with regard to known technologies and parts.

I was trying to find a way to reconcile certain parts of ID with Evolution. First, I had to find parts of ID that arguably could somehow be fitted into something that Evolution either doesn't cover or yet satisfactorily explain. Then, even though I did not agree that the parts chosen had merit, I decided for the sake of argument to assume that they were scientifically valid. Finally, I had to squeeze that bit of ID into Evolution in a way that did not conflict with Evolution, because I accept Evolution as an unalterable truth..

Well, Evolution doesn't purport to explain anything that happened before Evolution started. So the only way an Intelligent Designer can't conflict with the Evolutionary process is if he stops work when Evolution started and thereafter doesn't meddle with it. He would have to design a self-perpetuating process, start it running without any intended results or even concerns about what it will do, and then leave it alone to do whatever it ends up doing. If that process was Evolution, then everything Darwin says is still true, it still produced all past and present life, and there is a world chock-full of evidence that we can perceive which provides conclusive proof of Evolution. But we can't perceive the Designer himself due to his nature. The reason there is no sign of him in the evidence for Evolution is that once he starts that self-running process without regard to what it does, there is no further need or reason to touch it, so he left no tracks in the evidence the process produced.

So He would have just designed a process, not a machine with parts. You can have a process without a machine. Machine designers often have no parts because they are the ones drawing how new parts are thereafter to be made. Prior known technology could be helpful, but not essential. There have been technological developments that were not based on prior knowledge, and design processes often start with nothing with the goal of creating something.

All I'm saying is that there is a logical way for an Intelligent Designer to both exist and not conflict with any aspect of Evolution. But to do that I had to make him invisible and his existence impossible to perceive let alone prove scientifically. So right off the bat, even it it's true, Intelligent Design cannot be subjected to scientific inquiry, and it is a fraud for its proponents to advance it as a serious alternative scientific theory.


5.

The hominid history goes back considerably further than that. Back to about 6.6 million years IIRC.

Although hominids have been around for millions of years, I used 250,000 years because by then homo sapiens was certainly established, and the prior hominids were no longer around. The subject seems specific to our species' brain development, and it is our species that the holy rollers say is somehow had divine favor. So things should be confined to our species.

You are right that growing use of tools, hunting etc. develops brain power. Such uses really took off when homo sapiens arrived with a brain that gave it a competitive advantage over other hominids. IIRC there is a scientifically acknowledged gap in the evolutionary and archeological record about 250,000 years ago so it is not clear what happened. Today 90% of our brain power is still latent - we only use and understand 10%. It's not clear to me whether tools and the other brain developers you note came from tapping existing but latent brain power or gradually drove an increase in brain power. But this does appear to be the only time that Evolution gave a species excess capacity instead of just what it needed to survive.

Thus there is an open question in Evolution about human brain development that needs an answer. The question is not a fundamental threat, only on the periphery. But any question makes new thinking potentially useful, so there is reason to consider whether ID has anything to offer on the subject that might consistently fit into Evolution. ID basically says that humans are exceptional but adds that this is due to outside influence by God. If you throw out the God part and keep the outside influence and exceptional parts, there might be a fit. In the purely Evolutionary context, human brain development also seems exceptional and outside influences also can affect its normal process.

But that's it. Science already knows of many outside influences that, under the right circumstances, can disrupt or alter Evolutionary process enough to cause exceptional results in a fairly short time. Radiation and chemicals come to mind. An event where some of these known factors and even luck combined to exert exceptional outside influence at least has a conceivable basis. One that requires belief that an unknown thing exists with incomprehensible powers and good intentions has no basis at all.

[lunk]

Evolution seems to make perfect sense,
but even then there are some possible unseen implications.

For instance, could there be a more, or differently,
evolved intelligent creature living on Earth?
Perhaps existing in the oceans or underground,
that keeps its' presents hidden from us,
perhaps with advanced technology, far ahead of ours...
Perhaps they even "leak" us some of their technology...

They could have made humans from DNA, perhaps.
A modified genetical myriad of the most potentially capable surface creatures, a custom designed prototype: us.

Through thousands of years of selective breeding,
different humans have been bred for different tasks,
giving diverse appearances in the species,
but genetically, we are almost all exactly the same,
compared to other creatures.

Of course, every once and a while, this separate species, from humans,
or their advanced technologies, are spotted by humans, and we explain this, as the unexplainable, demons, UFO's, Bigfoot, Ogopogo, and so on.

So perhaps, we are intentionally being kept to think,
by another evolved species, on Earth,
that we are alone, intelligent,
and the most sheeperior species
in the universe.

People have been breeding different species of plants and animals,
for crops and domestication for years,
and now, it is possible to create a new life-form in a test-tube.

Perhaps we are just emulating our (hiding) creators,
who evolved ahead of us, and are really running the world.

How is that for a take on creation vs evolution?

We are genetically modified organisms created and used,
by a naturally evolved species,
probably just to make, their life,
a little easier.

...but one can not really know the long term effects,
of introducing a GMO into nature.

[Sanders]

...Well, Evolution doesn't purport to explain anything that happened before Evolution started. So the only way an Intelligent Designer can't conflict with the Evolutionary process is if he stops work when Evolution started and thereafter doesn't meddle with it. He would have to design a self-perpetuating process, start it running without any intended results or even concerns about what it will do, and then leave it alone to do whatever it ends up doing. If that process was Evolution, then everything Darwin says is still true, it still produced all past and present life, and there is a world chock-full of evidence that we can perceive which provides conclusive proof of Evolution. But we can't perceive the Designer himself due to his nature. The reason there is no sign of him in the evidence for Evolution is that once he starts that self-running process without regard to what it does, there is no further need or reason to touch it, so he left no tracks in the evidence the process produced.

So He would have just designed a process, not a machine with parts. You can have a process without a machine. Machine designers often have no parts because they are the ones drawing how new parts are thereafter to be made. Prior known technology could be helpful, but not essential. There have been technological developments that were not based on prior knowledge, and design processes often start with nothing with the goal of creating something.

All I'm saying is that there is a logical way for an Intelligent Designer to both exist and not conflict with any aspect of Evolution...

Yes, you can believe or hope that there was an intelligent designer that, I don't know, laid down some rules and let it go ... but it's not required. Look into micells, or experiments which show cell membranes & RNA, negative and positive feedback loops within systems forming spontaneously ... chemistry provides the answers to how life started - nothing has been proven, but there is a mountain of research that suggests that no "spark" was needed other than the conditions that existed on earth at the time.

But I won't try and convince anyone that we are nothing but the elaborate extension of bacteria, the all of our powers result simply from the forces of natural selection stretched over a couple billion years ... because if you dive into this topic seriously, when it all really hits you, the sand runs out of your bosom and leaves you with an empty feeling so deep that can never be repaired. I know, I'm a victim of my own insatiable curiosity. Religion makes life easier IMO ... maybe better to believe that there's more to it than just this.

Just like I was a happier guy before I learned the truth about 9/11.

Truth is not for the faint of heart.

[lunk]

There is order to every chaos,
even the most seemingly random events can be seen in patterns,
in a grander scale. Even the galaxies in the sky follow a pattern,
in space, where they can and can't be found.
Symmetry seems to exist from molecular to galactic,
but at every level there seems to be, some random subset.
But that is still just predictable order, at a different scale.
i think that Chaos Theory, proves there is no such thing a chaos.

So, isn't evolution, a form of random chaos,
and intelligent design, a form of structured order?

...So Chaos theory proves intelligent design,
but there doesn't necessarily have to be intelligence behind structure,
i can build a cave with less materials than a mountain, uses, perhaps even stronger, than a similar cave in a mountain,
depending on the mountain, i'm up against.

So intelligent design, is really a human invention.
Nature is a rigid system, in which, each of us is the intelligent creator,
...well, the only living one, that i know, of.

What are the chances that this concept
of evolution vs. intelligent design
is just another one of these,
thesis/antithesis, synthesis thingys?

(problem/reaction, solution)
the solution, of course, is always secretly known,
before the problem is flagged.

[albertchampion]

so, tell me, what is the cause of the race to devolve intellectually? television? the public education system? a pandemic of prions? some as yet unidentified brain-eating bacteria? all of the above?

[lunk]

so, tell me, what is the cause of the race to devolve intellectually? television? the public education system? a pandemic of prions? some as yet unidentified brain-eating bacteria? all of the above?

i don't think that any "race" intellectually devolve,

though it may be true,
that if you don't use it, you lose it,
...the plight of the leisure society, i guess.

but anybody could be made stupider with chemicals,
hormones or perhaps a targeting bacteria or virus,
that could effect different parts of their brain, as well.

Why would anyone want to do that to another human intelligent creator?

Because, if people realized what they really are...
power and control, could no longer be held by the few, over the many.

We are the intelligent designer.
Each one of us, is the intelligent designer,
subconsciously or consciously, we change the reality,
we have created, or, go along with, for, or against.

You can imagine saying this, to yourself;

"All there is, is just me,
in infinite space, with infinite time,
no one else, no-thing else.
Everything that exists
was a creation of mine,
and is made only, and entirely, of time and space
(and i sure am glad, there is only one lunk.)"
...∞i∞...

oh ya, where was i?
irrelevant design vs devolution,

Hmmm, the things i create,
tend to get better,
with time.

i think this may be universally true, too.

[albertchampion]

i think you misunderstood.

not a "race" intent on devolution. but a race[as in nascar] to devolve.

[lunk]

i think you misunderstood.

not a "race" intent on devolution. but a race[as in nascar] to devolve.

Ah, the "rat" race; the mass man, i see.
i think that, like statistics, the mass man, does not exists,
and the rat race is a fabricated term for the purpose of dehumanization..

If we are all "the creator", then if one human,
can trick a bunch of others to believe,
in doing something that gives, that person, more power and control,
then they are in essence, taking away the potential of others,
and really only limiting their own self.
As there is really only one creator, that goes by the name,
of all the singular pronouns, (him, her, you, me, i)
(this is why it sort of makes sense,
to treat everybody in the same way, that you yourself,
would expect to be treated.)
Deep down, we are all the same one "thing",
(as a John Carpenter head scurries by, on 8 legs.)

yes, i know,
back to evolution vs intelligent design...

[albertchampion]

i chase you here as i contemplate my forthcoming book. tentatively entitled I DON'T GET IT.

it is a reflection upon how the citizenry runs away from its best interests.

is this a conscious effort? or an inadvertant one?

it has been my observation that the citizenry runs from the truth. and runs away from the truth-tellers. thus, are conscious devolvers. even revolvers aimed and fired at themselves.

[lunk]

i chase you here as i contemplate my forthcoming book. tentatively entitled I DON'T GET IT.

it is a reflection upon how the citizenry runs away from its best interests.

is this a conscious effort? or an inadvertant one?

it has been my observation that the citizenry runs from the truth. and runs away from the truth-tellers. thus, are conscious devolvers. even revolvers aimed and fired at themselves.

There is definitely a conscious effort to dumb down the population, and there is also a mass mind programming program that has been going on, in one way or another, practically, since the discovery of fire.
Civilizations have been raised like crops of mushroom,
and the techniques are reused and improved upon.
Slavery was never abolished, it was perfected, and our civilization, are the slaves of the moneyed masters, who run it,
from their mono-eyed monstrosity.
The truth is a very cold bath, most will want to run from.
But, i think it is better to know the truth, cold, wet and shaking,
than to continue to go on believing in someone elses bizarre psychopathic explanations and fantasy, that most used to agree,
was normal.

People should want to know more, but this natural yearning has been artificially, and i think, intentionally subverted, through education, tv, movies, sports, books, postcards, neckties, stained glass windows...

i think, you will find the same thing happens at the end of every civilization, that is happening to ours, now, and after, it all is started again, by design.

[albertchampion]

yes, i like the necktie responsibility for all of this. choking blood flow through the carotid, the jugular i suppose. rendering the brain blood-starved.

before i became a geezer, i used to prize neckties[even bowties]. i have a great collection of great works of necktie art, by the way.

in fact, i have contemplated finding a textile artist to sew them into a bit of art. tentatively to be entitled, loves of a preppie.

it is a great collection of textile artistry. saying so much about some post ww2 eras.

haven't worn one of these chokers in years.

[lunk]

i don't even like doing up the top button on my shirt.

The tie is quite unnatural and counter intuitive, i feel.
It is the tie that binds, like a leash,
a mental representation of a noose of sorts,
really quite dangerous to wear,
in most of the things i have to do.
Wearing a tie, that is devolution, in the making.
the complete opposite of unrestrained.
...metaphorically, and literally.

unless it is worn as part of a costume,
like in a stage play, or satire...

Somehow, most accept the tie as the symbol of authority.
When it is more like a choke collar on the future evolution of humans.

...but perhaps, this is no accident,
and the tie is an intelligent design for power and control,
subliminally, over the many, by the few.

[Omega892R09]

Something I wrote many years ago - a review of Darwin's Black Box, a book by Behe.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050406084134/..._response.shtml

Nice one S (E). (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/handsdown.gif)

Behe is indeed dangerous.

Of course Dawkins sets the record straight WRT "irreducibly complexity" in a number of recent books and certainly in his mammoth work 'The Ancestor's Tale' cited above.

Another book worth looking out is:

Why Evolution Is True

and if you are buying it from Amazon why not order Dawkins'

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

if you are in to evolution you won't regret it.

I note your section on Gould, he was good but had one or two odd ideas. Religion, e.g. Literal Bible teaching,and evolution just don't mix. IMHO. Non-overlapping magesteria notwithstanding.

EDIT Punc'

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Feb 23 2010, 01:30 PM