Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Intelligent design revisited --- as in one more time - as in encore - as in
sannhet -- far be it from me to suggest that anything is wrong with having
the sort of perspective you describe, as it tends to foster a positive outlook on life and an innate sense of well being for the indvidual. If there is one pitfall to such an outlook, it is in what we are discussing here in that it can impede objectivity in certain areas of investigation.
posted by
gomedome
on July 20, 2005 at 1:15 PM
| link to this | reply
Gome -
You may be right about that. All I can say is that in the years when I did not believe in some sort of "God", it was the realization that the world is so beautiful, that love is so powerful, and the systems and processes at work in the world are so intricate yet work so well that, in my mind, it couldn't mean anything but some sort of intelligence at work.
posted by
sannhet
on July 20, 2005 at 12:34 PM
| link to this | reply
sannhet -- and that was the point made in this posting
If you did not believe in a supreme being prior to examining the evidence, it is unlikely that you would derive a notion of a creator designing everything or come to the same conclusion. At least based on the evidence we have currently. In that regard the premise of a creating entity implementing a master design becomes an abstract concept introduced to the investigation for reasons other than seeking unbiased conclusions. Much of scientific investigation becomes agendized in this manner, it cannot help but be so with the notion of a supreme being instilled in our collective consciousness the way it is. Back to the different lenses: From my perspective, every bit of knowledge we attain about the universe, be it from sattelite or space probe photos or whatever source, lends more credence to the fact that we exist in a state of random variables within the vastness of the universe. Creation and certainly creation within a master plan or design makes less sense every day as does any form of conscious intelligence propagating said variables.
posted by
gomedome
on July 20, 2005 at 8:30 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome -
You are right. We are looking at the same thing through different lenses. Though I can certainly see your point about randomness and chaos when I look at it, my lenses are such that what I see is a bit fuzzy. However, if I look directly at evidence of evolution, I see a clear picture of intelligence at work.
posted by
sannhet
on July 20, 2005 at 7:58 AM
| link to this | reply
sannhet -- this then comes down to viewing the same evidence through
different lenses. I see the same things but my conclusions are decidedly different. Survival of the fittest species, even the need to evolve as an adaptive measure to one's environment, to me denotes random variables and chaos. I cannot see it as a form of order and structure or a means of explaining that which one might assume would come from the universe being propagated by an intelligent being. It seems to point to the opposite, that no intelligent or conscious being had anything to do with it.
posted by
gomedome
on July 19, 2005 at 2:26 PM
| link to this | reply
Gome -
I see your point. What I was getting at is that as a believer in some sort of universal intelligence (call it whatever you want - God, Allah, Buddha, Joe), evolution is intelligent design. On a larger scale, the fact that there is a process that allows an organism to adapt and mutate to better suit its surroundings and help it to survive, and that this process also allows for the weeding out of weaker organisms, seems to point to some kind of intelligence at work in the creation of this process. Does it prove it? No, but it does offer one explanation.
posted by
sannhet
on July 19, 2005 at 1:47 PM
| link to this | reply
sannhet -- I don't think so
When you ask: "Isn't evolution intelligent design?" Isn't evolution the atithesis of intelligent design?...may be a better question. Design by it's definition implies the planning of something before it is constructed or in the case of a supreme being, before it is created. Why not just build it right from the outset? Why expose anything that was supposedly designed to an infinate number of variables that will all ultimately influence it's survival, abilities, development and appearance? This plan of attack more suggests that the object or creature is a product of those variables than it is a product of some design.
posted by
gomedome
on July 19, 2005 at 12:53 PM
| link to this | reply
empty_handed_painter -- this is the key right here
"Once you promote such design, then you must have either a totally perfect universe or you have to try to explain the imperfections (or say that they really aren't imperfections)." Stars going super-nova, galaxies colliding, comets and asteroids crashing into planets, I ask the same people who would advance the notion of a single intelligent entity "designing" all of this why these events would be necessary and the answer is invariably inadequate.
posted by
gomedome
on July 19, 2005 at 12:44 PM
| link to this | reply
Gome -
Isn't evolution intelligent design?
posted by
sannhet
on July 19, 2005 at 9:39 AM
| link to this | reply
its purely physics
all sorts of "laws" and other such apply
Einstein probably gave us the most accurate view of the universe, and yet that of course was incomplete.
myriad and countless things exist out there. so we don't know
we shouldn't apply human characteristics to the universe or assume design and planning.
maybe an intentional evolution.
where the Universe moves in a direction, which is determined by events within the Universe. Thus life evolves as it can survive best. Life moves toward Intelligence. Intelligence moves toward understanding.
All this in fits and starts, trial and error, until the better arises, not the perfect, but the better.
I believe in the Logos of John 1:1. that is, expression, purpose, intent.
there is intention to progress.
the micscropic and sub -- the astronomical and super -- all perform according to certain principles -- this is inherent in the "nature" of all things -- it is not at all "design", as in some super human being sat down at some time in the past, took an infinite amount of time, and designed the entire infinite universe. Once you promote such design, then you must have either a totally perfect universe or you have to try to explain the imperfections (or say that they really aren't imperfections).
posted by
Xeno-x
on July 19, 2005 at 9:32 AM
| link to this | reply