What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-03-2013, 01:20 AM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2013 01:34 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 01:07 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-03-2013 12:25 AM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  Evolution being "used" is called breeding. That requires an intelligent agency. There is no intelligent agency in nature.

Essentially all plants (all the hundreds of thousands of species) are GREEN. They have all evolved to be that colour. There was no intelligent agency behind this. It was blind.

A similar response: All rivers flow down stream. There was no intelligent agency behind this, there was no thought, no cosmic spirit. It's a product of blind nature reacting to specific laws.

Blind = no intelligent agency. That's all.

I'm not talking about breeding. When you breed, you pick and choose which members of the population get to mate and with whom.

I am talking about manipulating or manufacturing the fitness paradigm to achieve a certain result. Suppose I have a colony of bacteria and I expose them to a small dose of antibiotic. Many die but the most resistant live on. The population rebounds. I adminster the dose again. Eventually I get a colony of bacteria which is completely resistant to the antibiotic.

Suppose God designed the universe so that complex life would arise on some planets. He may include a filter, like large asteriods striking the planet every 100 million years or so. If a class of organism evolves and comes to dominate the planet but doesn't evolve enough intelligence to deflect asteriod impacts it will get wiped out, clearing the way for evolution to have another shot at evolving intelligence. Eventually evolution will produce an intelligence capable of deflecting asteriods. Design the fitness paradigm and you determine what it is evolution will produce.

It is logically possible there is no intellectual agency that designed the fitness paradigm called earth.
It is logically possible there is an intellectual agency that designed the fitness paradigm called earth.

Both those premises can be true.

False. You have not demonstrated that the words "fitness paradigm" have any coherent meaning. You are placing an immaginary function onto a system which has been proven to produce non-fit products.
You also have to demonstrate that "intelligent agency" has any meaning in the absence of biology, (which has never been observed), AND how and why that would work in a non-temporal environment. (You god requires spacetime, if it's an "agent" as well as requires Causality to be in place already, which you have not even begun to address.)

It is possible there is a 1957 Chevy orbiting Pluto. That can also be a true premise.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 01:28 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 01:14 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(01-03-2013 01:07 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  It is logically possible there is no intellectual agency that designed the fitness paradigm called earth.
It is logically possible there is an intellectual agency that designed the fitness paradigm called earth.

Both those premises can be true.

Possible intelligence? Yes.

Probable intelligence? NO.

Drinking Beverage
Do you agree that in principle(not that it actually happened) an intellect could have designed the evolutionary system on this planet to produce an intelligent being like a human?
By answering yes, you in no way admit that an intelligence was likely.
yes or no....the question is open to everyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 01:35 AM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2013 01:38 AM by Adenosis.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 01:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-03-2013 01:14 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Possible intelligence? Yes.

Probable intelligence? NO.

Drinking Beverage
Do you agree that in principle(not that it actually happened) an intellect could have designed the evolutionary system on this planet to produce an intelligent being like a human?
By answering yes, you in no way admit that an intelligence was likely.
yes or no....the question is open to everyone.

Yes.

Now give your supporting evidence that this is the case. Playing the possibilities game is completely pointless.

(01-03-2013 12:16 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I can and will in the future make an inductive argument that an intellect was probably involved in the establishment of natural evolution on earth.

Where is the reasoning behind your belief that it is probable?

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 01:36 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 01:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-03-2013 01:14 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Possible intelligence? Yes.

Probable intelligence? NO.

Drinking Beverage
Do you agree that in principle(not that it actually happened) an intellect could have designed the evolutionary system on this planet to produce an intelligent being like a human?
By answering yes, you in no way admit that an intelligence was likely.
yes or no....the question is open to everyone.

Evolution is not a "system".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 01:39 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 01:36 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-03-2013 01:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Do you agree that in principle(not that it actually happened) an intellect could have designed the evolutionary system on this planet to produce an intelligent being like a human?
By answering yes, you in no way admit that an intelligence was likely.
yes or no....the question is open to everyone.

Evolution is not a "system".
pretend I said "process" instead
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 02:14 AM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2013 03:04 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 01:39 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-03-2013 01:36 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Evolution is not a "system".
pretend I said "process" instead

No. You just don't get it. It's NOT a "process" in a general sense either. Evolution is a theory of what the cumulative affects of what "happens" because biological INDIVIDUALS in a specific environment "happen" (randomly) to evolve a trait that gives them an advantage, and they pass it on. That means the ENVIRONMENT would have to be designed. Your fantasy would also mean, due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle,that your "intelligence" could alter the entire universe, and that, with no evidence, is unreasonable. It's anthro-centrism, and totally geo-centric. What goes on here, goes on everywhere, in this universe, until proven otherwise. It would mean it "designed" what goes on on every one of the billions or trillions of planets, and start sysems, and galaxies, and clusters of galazies in the entire universe. Sorry. Cooking up "possible (hare-brained) scenarios" is fine for fiction writers. It's not science. Evolution has produced intelligence in dolphins, Bonobo apes, some dogs, and some birds. Who knows what has been happening on other planetary systems ? Making up shit is not science.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-03-2013, 02:23 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 01:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-03-2013 01:14 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Possible intelligence? Yes.

Probable intelligence? NO.

Drinking Beverage
Do you agree that in principle(not that it actually happened) an intellect could have designed the evolutionary system on this planet to produce an intelligent being like a human?
By answering yes, you in no way admit that an intelligence was likely.
yes or no....the question is open to everyone.

Sure, and the answer is that Occam's Razor plus statistical probability, makes that possibility so low as to be insignificant and pointless. We might as well be talking about the possibility of being hit and killed by a Russian space toilet re-entering the Earth's atmosphere. Maybe for your next trick you can attempt to use that possibility to infer other-worldly 'guidance' in our space program...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
01-03-2013, 07:07 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 11:04 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-02-2013 10:52 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It isn't a red herring because an understanding beyond just definitions of concepts may help explain how there is a large difference in how people can view the term "guide" in different ways in the sense of evolution.


People here don't like the word "guide" because they think it necessarily implies the existence of an intellect. It doesn't. A guide can be smart or it can be dumb.

My point in this thread is that evolution(and here I am talking about more than just biological evolution) is guided by a fitness paradigm or function. Without some sort of fitness paradigm you can't have evolution. It is this fitness paradigm which ultimately determines the forms evolution produces....not blind chance as suggested by Dawkins and not manipulated mutations as suggested by some IDers.
You are doing the exact thing you accuse the posters here of doing. You say they are taking the word "guide" too literal to mean existence of intellect.... while YOU are taking the word "blind" from Dawkins to mean-not manipulated by factors.

That's why people are questioning your education one evolution. You are using both words in ways that they aren't generally used in the concept of the evolutionary debate, and are making a weak case by overly focusing on the idea of "blind"

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
01-03-2013, 07:19 AM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2013 07:22 AM by Full Circle.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 01:16 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-03-2013 12:27 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  I think this is how it'll all end as per Heywood:

1) God creates the universe
2) In it is the planet earth, not too far and not too close to just the right size star
3) He then manipulates the planet so that certain "selection pressures" are created with the final goal of Homo sapiens evolving
4) He tweaks and guides these "selection pressures" for the last 3.6 billion years (or 4.6 billion if you say he had to lay the groundwork for life first)
5) Out pops Adam and Eve

By using this argument Heywood isn't attacking evolution at all.

Is this your point Heywood? I'm just trying to cut through the smoke and mirrors, I had enough of that from PleaseJebus already. I think we'd all appreciate you laying out your case instead of dicking around the edges. Thanks in advance.
I take issue with number 4. There is no need to continually tweak and guide selection pressures over 3.6 billion years. Of course you can tweak and guide, but evolution is robust enough to create enough diversity and complexity that with the right combination of filters from the get go, you can use it to create what you want.


Well let's revisit the steps and take into account Bucky Ball's logical observation that "What goes on here, goes on everywhere, in this universe until proven otherwise"

1) God creates the universe with us in mind
2) so that Earthlike planets come to be
3) so that Homo sapiens can evolve as an end-game (triumphant finish)

What implications does this have following it to it's logical (if it has one) conclusion.

a) There have been, are and will be millions if not billions of earthlike planets with Homo sapiens living on them.
b) That Homo sapiens are the final goal of the creation of the universe.

This sounds an awful lot like Holism.

Holism has no evidentiary support. It doesn't work. Holism is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of those that have the hubris to think that they are an important part of some cosmic plan. - Victor Stenger


As an aside looking at all the biological organisms on this planet I would say that your cosmic creator didn't have us in mind at all but rather viruses or bacteria or even jellyfish; all more successful, abundant and found throughout the entire planet. Honestly, thinking that we humans are the sole reason for the universe not just to be created, but to be created in just the way it is requires such a stretch of the imagination, such an inflated ego and such myopic views of the science we already know as to be unworthy of serious thought.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Full Circle's post
01-03-2013, 11:17 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 01:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-03-2013 01:14 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Possible intelligence? Yes.

Probable intelligence? NO.

Drinking Beverage
Do you agree that in principle(not that it actually happened) an intellect could have designed the evolutionary system on this planet to produce an intelligent being like a human?
By answering yes, you in no way admit that an intelligence was likely.
yes or no....the question is open to everyone.

No an intellect cannot design evolution, because an intellect cannot control the choices that biological life makes, nor the environment that it lives in, nor the chemical reactions that happen in an organism that are outside the control of the organism itself.

Intellect as far as we know is a product of evolution.
Intellect cannot design the process that is responsible for making itself.

Through the natural process of evolution, a self aware intellect can be born.

A child cannot give birth to it's mother.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Rahn127's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: