Sawu Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Even though I have de-converted from christianity, I'v always felt since I was young a sense of technology in life, it felt like an inescapable conclusion, no doubt many others throughout history have felt this way... i.e. greeks, etc. I still feel an overwhelming sense of technology in biology from time to time. After having read paley and darwin, and much more modern evolutionary literature it sometimes seems to me that they may be both right, like each had half of the truth the other half was missing. Now I don't mean 'perfect, godlike, omniscient design', I mean in that despite life's imperfection there is an incredible amount of sophistication that I think a lot of people brush under the rug for fear of being labelled superstitious or "relgious" or god forbid they give ammo to the old religions, like xianity, islam, judaism, etc. The more we learn the deeper it gets. In fact after reading books like Darwin's black box and getting going through a bunch of biochemistry textbooks, part of me is still floored that anyone working in biology can resist the temptation of seeing technology in life and not having private thoughts about it being designed. Things that imply a lot of forethought or foreknowledge (i.e. proof reading mechanisms, repair mechanisms, self-defense systems, like the immune system, correctly choosing molecules, etc). If paley had known in hi day what we know now, darwin's theory may have been relegated to a much lower status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Even though I have de-converted from christianity, I'v always felt since I was young a sense of technology in life, it felt like an inescapable conclusion, no doubt many others throughout history have felt this way... i.e. greeks, etc. I still feel an overwhelming sense of technology in biology from time to time. After having read paley and darwin, and much more modern evolutionary literature it sometimes seems to me that they may be both right, like each had half of the truth the other half was missing. Now I don't mean 'perfect, godlike, omniscient design', I mean in that despite life's imperfection there is an incredible amount of sophistication that I think a lot of people brush under the rug for fear of being labelled superstitious or "relgious" or god forbid they give ammo to the old religions, like xianity, islam, judaism, etc. The more we learn the deeper it gets. In fact after reading books like Darwin's black box and getting going through a bunch of biochemistry textbooks, part of me is still floored that anyone working in biology can resist the temptation of seeing technology in life and not having private thoughts about it being designed. Things that imply a lot of forethought or foreknowledge (i.e. proof reading mechanisms, repair mechanisms, self-defense systems, like the immune system, correctly choosing molecules, etc). If paley had known in hi day what we know now, darwin's theory may have been relegated to a much lower status. I agree entirely I can't define it or try and prove it - it just seems at some level there is more than just chance and atoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 But the question remains: who designed the designer? Can a complex universe be created by a creator that itself arose from chance? then you would have to say,ultimately, that everything did arise from chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 I agree with Burnedout here. Yes, it does look like design, and we can design, so however we want to look at it, design is part of an eternal "trait" of existence. No, not necessarily God or a deity or supernatural. "Design" is part of the energy/chaos/oder/causality... nature consists of. Chance isn't the only part of it all. Chance/Randomness/Chaos and Order/Structure are the competing forces. If someone wants to give those forces labels, then they can be called Devil=Randomness (Chaos), God=Order/Structure. But again, they're not supernatural forces or intentionally/intelligent/cognitive/sentient minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llwellyn Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 I think the risk of this type of thinking is that it tends to halt the progress of science. The minute some mystic or religious cleric says "sacred, numinous mystery," then the scientific investigation of the phenomenon tends to end. This always turns out to be premature -- things that have been thought to be beyond human investigation or explanation are later revealed to be again belong to the realm of the understandable as there are further scientific breakthroughs. I myself an an agnostic -- and more than that, I am a mystic and a Platonist. But science and wonder should walk hand in hand and advance together. But least of all should we allow currently unanswered questions to be a reason to stop asking the question or -- worse yet, to be a reason to subscribe to the obscene Abrahamic religions of Yahweh's destructive retribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest droskey Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 I would add that things appear designed because they are. Just, there is no reason to believe that they are "intelligently" designed. Evolving systems do exhibit design. Evolution is driven by random processes that are filtered through natural selection. It is this selection that produces the characteristics of design. However, natural selection is not intelligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Droskey, exactly. It's not only chance, it is "guided" chance. Or unintelligent design, and since we are part of this "design" of course we perceive everything as designed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosa Mystica Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 I still perceive a sense of design. Of course, I also believe in a deity, and am a proponent of the First Cause Argument (though not the Christian version of it). As for intelligent design, nope, that ain't the case from what I can see. But who says God has to be all-knowing???? Especially if "God" is really an impersonal force? Just my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paloriam Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 I have no doubt that the world was created by something greater than us. By what I don't know. Be it supernatural or natural; gods or alien beings. Look at the DNA strand. How could that just "happen". Whether these beings continually guide the development of our world I cannot say. Whether they care about it I cannot say either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 When people ask if this question it asumes that nature is very ordered and so there must be a "designer" to make it ordered. I personally see order and disorder both working in harmony with each other, even while they war with each other. A tree decays in the forest providing nutrients for another to grow in its place. Order comes out of disorder every day, this is simply the nature of the world we live in. Was it designed by something inteligent? who knows? I woudn't even venture a guess generally, I'd usually rather just get on with the business of living...but the idea that nature is perfectly "ordered" is just nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 The reason I am an agnostic and not an athiest is because of the seeming design. I just know that with the inconsistencies of Christianity, I do not find it to have the answer. GAH!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 I have a bit of a problem with calling evolution "unintelligent" design. I think design implies a willful, conscious effort to create something that has form or function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 So then are you a proponent of intelligent design? in the sense of creation of all things.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrisonjj Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 I have no doubt that the world was created by something greater than us. By what I don't know. Be it supernatural or natural; gods or alien beings. Look at the DNA strand. How could that just "happen". Whether these beings continually guide the development of our world I cannot say. Whether they care about it I cannot say either. I actually agree with this observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narcissist Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 After 3.5 billion odd years of evolution by natural selection, I would be surprised if there wasn't a certain "sophistication" to life, its systems & processes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 After 3.5 billion odd years of evolution by natural selection, I would be surprised if there wasn't a certain "sophistication" to life, its systems & processes. I actually agree with this observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Do you get the same gut feeling when you try to comprehend infinity? Because, basically, that's what 3.5 billion years is to up. Try to comprehend either. The true wonderment is where that first spark of life came from. Whether it came by accident or design, everything after that point was natural selection. If it proceded for the next 3.5 billion years with no intrusion whatsoever, it would have eventually come out as one of an essentially infinite array of possiblities of equally amazing biospheres, each showing an uncanny amount of sophistication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entgegen Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 If you guys haven't read it already, I highly recommend The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design by Richard Dawkins. This discussion is what that book is all about: showing how the appearance of design can be explained by random processes coupled with natural selection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorena Rodriguez Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 I would add that things appear designed because they are. Just, there is no reason to believe that they are "intelligently" designed. Evolving systems do exhibit design. Evolution is driven by random processes that are filtered through natural selection. It is this selection that produces the characteristics of design. However, natural selection is not intelligent. I agree that it is evolution as opposed to design. Many call it Intelligence. There is certain Intelligence in evolution that guides everything. It looks like design because of its consistency. Because evolution of ALL animal and plant species follow the same rules (laws), it looks like design, but it is not. In fact, I think it is the opposite: spontaneity at its best, adaptability to the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest droskey Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Lorena Rodriguez Many call it Intelligence. There is certain Intelligence in evolution that guides everything. It looks like design because of its consistency. I agree. Perhaps we are using the wrong word here. Really what I mean by "intelligent" is "conscious" or "willed". I think that this is what most people mean when they discuss "intelligent design" in nature. Unfortunatly the word intelligent doesn't yeild the precisly correct meaning. I really think it should be called "conscious design" or "willed design" or something like that. I think that there is no evidence that science has come across to suggest design of this type (conscious) in nature. There is no evidence of a consiousness that goes about causing things to evolve. Rather, the environment changes quite independently of the "will" of any organisms involved and natural selection picks out those organisms that are most suited to the change (from a reproductive sense). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 I like this way of saying it, that I recently heard: Evolution is the non-random selective process of random changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 I like this way of saying it, that I recently heard: Evolution is the non-random selective process of random changes. Daniel Dennett compares it to a tournement of coin tossing. Just another way of putting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aldous Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Ok, look at it this way, Sure it's one in a gazillion odd that things would filter out as they have, but, something did have to happen. If it wasn't this one particular one in the gazillions of possibilities, then we just wouldn't be here to ask these questions. So, in that respect, I'd say any amount of improbability could be discounted. It's just like the fact that someone has to win the lottery, and it just so happens that we did, which is why we're sitting here wondering 'how the hell did that happen?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts