Intelligent Design

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I've noticed that sometimes on controversial topics people sometimes forget to read all of the post because they are eager to reply so I'm going to write here that
1. I am agnostic
2. I generally disagree with how most religions are run
3. I <3 evolution
4. I am skeptical about a higher power that is concious in the way that we humans are.

I would like to hear some input on this thought about intelligent design vs science/evolution. And although it seemed interesting to me it might have already been discussed or completely stupid, so be gentle Very Happy

.

It seems to me that the existence of science, evolution, and all other such things actually strongly suggest the existence of intelligent design. If there is intelligent design then it would make sense that God came first. So, with that in mind, wouldn't science, evolution, and intelligent design all be quite compatible and able to exist simultaneously?

I also like the idea that there was the universe, natural laws, evolution first, and out of all of that evolved what we might see as God in the form of a higher conciousness.

So let's hear what you all have to say about this. I'd also love any other comments or ideas on the possible compatibility or non-compatibility of ID + Science/Evolution.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 10,306 • Replies: 222

No top replies

@thysin,

I believe there is a higher consciousness/god in everyone and every living thing

1 Reply

@Caroline,

I believe similarly. I've decided the best word to describe how I feel about everything is 'Cosmos'.
If you look closely you can see the Cosmos breathe with your eyes and feel its heartbeat within your soul. I believe we used to be able to do this effortlessly and we should strive to reattain that ability.

1 Reply

@thysin,

I heard a lecture the other day about how evolution is not science.

I pulled this definition out of the Cambridge dictionary:

Science: "the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by observing, measuring and experimenting, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities"

He was critisizing how evolution can not be observed, measured, and experimented. I myself do not know alot about this topic though I was wondering if much of Darwins thought was based off simply of this inferences from his finches. He observed finches beaks enlarging so they can eat harders seeds etc... though that doesn't acctually change their species. A finch is a finch.

So then what would appear to me to be demanded to recieve the definition of science is transitional forms and should there not be loads? Much more so then all other fossils as the evolution as people say took millions or is it billions of years?

As to your question:

I think it is obvious that you can make them either incompatible or compatible depending on how you define your opinions of your ID or your views towards evolution.

Some believe that God put evolution into effect and that the creation story is a fairy tale.

Others still believe in creationism and do not include evolution because that is mutually exclusive with creationism. Creationism being all things in existence were created directly by the word of God.

0 Replies

@thysin,

I believe there is fairly strong evidence towards evolution. Take for example the Peppered Moth Evolution. The finch beak would be an example of microevolution, but in my opinion microevolution is to evolution(macroevolution) as acorns are to oaks. A lot of creationists accept microevolution(due to things like the finches and peppered moths) but don't accept macroevolution for reasons I've yet to look up. So in essence a bunch of microevolutions would eventually change something to something totally different than what it was to begin with.

1 Reply

@thysin,

thysin wrote:

It seems to me that the existence of science, evolution, and all other such things actually strongly suggest the existence of intelligent design. If there is intelligent design then it would make sense that God came first. So, with that in mind, wouldn't science, evolution, and intelligent design all be quite compatible and able to exist simultaneously?

First, I'm not quite sure how the existence of certain ideologies suggests the presence of Intelligent design. Could you elaborate?

Second, I agree; If Intelligent design was factual -- and we knew it -- science, evolution, and intelligent design would, at fruition, be perfectly compatible (and therefore would be able to exist simultaneously).

thysin wrote:

I also like the idea that there was the universe, natural laws, evolution first, and out of all of that evolved what we might see as God in the form of a higher conciousness.

Compared to other species, we -- as humans -- are essentially gods.

1 Reply

@thysin,

thysin wrote:

I believe there is fairly strong evidence towards evolution. Take for example the Peppered Moth Evolution. The finch beak would be an example of microevolution, but in my opinion microevolution is to evolution(macroevolution) as acorns are to oaks. A lot of creationists accept microevolution(due to things like the finches and peppered moths) but don't accept macroevolution for reasons I've yet to look up. So in essence a bunch of microevolutions would eventually change something to something totally different than what it was to begin with.

And with the example of the peppered moth as well as the finches they are still moths just different collored moths.

I do remember learning about both of these in Biology class what I didn't understand is why they didn't show the evidence of one species to another species. Is there any? Should their not be loads?

Many creationists accept microevolution because it can be viewed and experimented upon. They do not except macro because it can not be viewed and experimented on or did I miss something in my education of biology.

1 Reply

@ddancom,

ddancom wrote:

First, I'm not quite sure how the existence of certain ideologies suggests the presence of Intelligent design. Could you elaborate?

In all the scientific laws/principles we have observed it's obvious that the universe as a whole has some sort of 'design' that we are attempting to decipher. In my opinion, the presence of a design implies something akin to reason or purpose which would, in turn, imply intelligence or thought.
I like how you put the idea of God into terms with our existence with animals. We may build a dog house for our pet, it doesn't know why it's there or how it was made, but it knows it can use it for shelter.

1 Reply

@click here,

Yes, but let's say that then some sort of foreign moss that produces huge amounts of oxygen was introduced to the area, therefore creating a much higher oxygen content in the area. With the increase in oxygen the tracheae begin to decrease in size because they don't need to be as big to take in enough oxygen for sustainment. Now that the tracheae are decreasing in size, it leaves room for the moth itself to increase in size because it will have thicker sturdier legs and larger organs.
Next one of the moths lays some eggs on a student's backpack. That student enrolls in a college in England and once he gets there the moth eggs hatch and they begin a colony. Now with different predators, environment, food sources they could adapt in millions of different ways and as they do they become less and less like their ancestors from a few years before.
Jump into a time machine, travel a million years into the future and you would probably not find anything similar to the moths from a million years before, but probably their descendants who would now be classified as a completely different type of moth.

This is just how I understand it and it could be wrong but it makes sense to me.

2 Replies

@thysin,

Given that evolutionary theory seems to be valid, as it is well supported through evidence, "intelligent design" seems to be an attempt for certain religious people to still cling to their faith in a divine creator, knowing that evolution does not really require the presence of such a being.

Origin of the specious - A C Grayling dissects a new defence of Intelligent Design

Just a link to provide a bit of thought...

1 Reply

@thysin,

thysin wrote:

Yes, but let's say that then some sort of foreign moss that produces huge amounts of oxygen was introduced to the area, therefore creating a much higher oxygen content in the area. With the increase in oxygen the tracheae begin to decrease in size because they don't need to be as big to take in enough oxygen for sustainment. Now that the tracheae are decreasing in size, it leaves room for the moth itself to increase in size because it will have thicker sturdier legs and larger organs.
Next one of the moths lays some eggs on a student's backpack. That student enrolls in a college in England and once he gets there the moth eggs hatch and they begin a colony. Now with different predators, environment, food sources they could adapt in millions of different ways and as they do they become less and less like their ancestors from a few years before.
Jump into a time machine, travel a million years into the future and you would probably not find anything similar to the moths from a million years before, but probably their descendants who would now be classified as a completely different type of moth.

This is just how I understand it and it could be wrong but it makes sense to me.

When traveling to Europe and then hatched they would still be moths. Hypothesizing about millions of years in the future is not science. You can not view or test that. It is merely forming an idea, or philosophizing.

1 Reply

@thysin,

"Fuller has written about Popper; he seems to forget Popper's killer point, namely, a theory that explains everything explains nothing. ID is such a theory; everything is consistent with it, nothing disproves it."
Definitely showed me a new perspective on it, thanks. That idea kind of reinforces(I'm searching for supporting evidence! lol) my thoughts on our interpretation of intelligence pertaining to ID, which I find likely to be quite different if ID is in fact present. Maybe I should just come up with a name other than ID...or if anyone knows one, share it! How about Macrocosmic Intelligence, or somethin' like that.

0 Replies

@thysin,

thysin wrote:

In all the scientific laws/principles we have observed it's obvious that the universe as a whole has some sort of 'design' that we are attempting to decipher. In my opinion, the presence of a design implies something akin to reason or purpose which would, in turn, imply intelligence or thought.

I contend that we have observed the organization of the universe, not its design. To reiterate: organization is the proper antonym of chaos -- not design.

Organization does not necessitate design. Hence, evolutionary theory.

1 Reply

@click here,

click here wrote:

When traveling to Europe and then hatched they would still be moths. Hypothesizing about millions of years in the future is not science. You can not view or test that. It is merely forming an idea, or philosophizing.

True, I see your point. But to interpret what I said before about acorns and oaks. Creationists believing in microevolution but not macroevolution would be like saying, "There is no way an acorn can become an oak, because they are different."
Think of these new generations of moths as the seeds for moths that will inevitably be different one million years from now because it's environment will always be changing, forcing them to change with it.
To sum that up a bit, since obviously the moths did change once, if there were 1,000 factors(which inevitably there will be)that made them change in miniscule ways...would they not be completely different?

1 Reply

@ddancom,

ddancom wrote:

I contend that we have observed the organization of the universe, not its design. To reiterate: organization is the proper antonym of chaos -- not design.

Organization does not require design. Hence, evolutionary theory.

I'm not an etymologist but isn't design a synonym of organization?

I should mention I'm using design as a noun.

1 Reply

@thysin,

Design implies the existence of a designer; Organization does not. They are not synonymous in scope.

1 Reply

@ddancom,

ddancom wrote:

Design implies the existence of a designer; Organization does not. They are not synonymous in scope.

I get it now, thanks for explaining.

ddancom wrote:

I contend that we have observed the organization of the universe, not its design. To reiterate: organization is the proper antonym of chaos -- not design.

Organization does not necessitate design. Hence, evolutionary theory.

Since I understand this now I see your point of view and I say it's just as possible that it could be organization as much as it could be design, we just don't know enough yet.

0 Replies

@Parapraxis,

The issue is of time.

Time is part of the universe. Our thoughts are time based. It therefore becomes difficult to comprehend the possibility of an intelligent force existing before time was created - as we often consider such intellgience as a similar time-based thinking.

Most ID theory I have heard is unconvincing and seems to be grappling with science (which is more accepting of its limitations), in a bid to recruit more converts. Perhaps it is a noble intention. Perhaps though, science and religion are not meant to converge, but remain distant, so as we have space to experience more.

There is an answer though. I am sure the progression of science towards a unifying theory is accurate. What will it look like? And what field will stumble upon it?

1 Reply

@thysin,

Quote:

it's just as possible that it could be organization as much as it could be design, we just don't know enough yet.

Exactly. The organization of the universe could be the result of the implementation of some cosmic design. Conversely, it could be the result of a plethora of "random" events.

1 Reply

@doc phil,

doc wrote:

Most ID theory I have heard is unconvincing and seems to be grappling with science (which is more accepting of its limitations), in a bid to recruit more converts. Perhaps it is a noble intention. Perhaps though, science and religion are not meant to converge, but remain distant, so as we have space to experience more.

I agree. I'm trying to wrap my brain around(add to bad quotes thread?) a thought I had a few weeks ago about the Cosmos being God, and I would like to stress the fact that I do not mean God in the traditional sense. It's just a theory but it feels right when I think about it. Not saying everything is carefully thought out or planned ahead but more like that it just is as it is and it's circumstances are what creates and destroys, not concious decisions made by a deity. I still have not found an adequate way to articulate this theory in a way that is easily deciphered, so I'll just say it's a very peaceful feeling I get when I relax and get in touch with it.

doc wrote:

There is an answer though. I am sure the progression of science towards a unifying theory is accurate. What will it look like? And what field will stumble upon it?

And it will be damned exciting no matter what way it comes out, maybe that'll graduate us to being 'Gods' of this universe, lol.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know