Most of the time evolution occurs through "natural", (i.e. Darwinistic), mechanisms. However, or rare occasions when necessarry, some kind of intervention occurs that pushes the direction of evolution in the future.
Some thoughts from both a scientific and a religious perspective:
1) Darwinism offers no insite as to the beginning of life. The chemical soup struck by lightning (or radiation or whatever) theory about the creation of life is just as big a leap of faith as any religious based threory.
2) Most evolutionary processes incur small changes, and can be verified through test. I have still yet to hear a credible and believable theory that can be verified by test as to why there have been periods in earth's history where there has rapid changes in life's diversity and complexity. Almost like evolution has a "speed control."
3) God usually does things the "normal way", and when he rarely does invervene "supernaturally" he tends to use the minimum amount of godly power required. For example, when Jesus raised Lazarus, he had the stone removed from the door manually. He also turned water into wine rather than conjure wine out of air. So why not let nature do most of the evolutionary work and only get involved at certain intervals.
4) So we have 98% of our DNA in common with Chimps? In real life we take existing designs and do slight modifications to create totaly new products. Why wouldn't God do the same?
5) The creation story from the Bible is extremely vague, and is intended more as a spiritual lesson than anything else. God organized the earth and all life for our benefit. The details of how this was done really don't matter.
Anyway, to me these polarized debates about natural selection vs. intelligent design seem silly. Since both sides seem to fear so greatly the teaching of the other's ideas, they probably don't have a strong belief in them themselves. Otherwise, Darwinist's wouldn't care if ID or creatinism was taught, and vice versa. So my verdict, strict adherence to either position is probably incorrect, and the truth lies somewhere in between.
Posts: 157 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That depends on if you are willing to put faith and science on equal levels when choosing to evaluate the whole thing.
By equal, I mainly mean that the two can be intertwined together to explain something without there being a large level of conflict in your mind.
Posts: 291 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the best of my knowledge, the most popular form of Intelligent Design IS the one that incorporates natural selection, but adds a "guiding hand" by the Designer.
And, in theory, the idea of natural selection doesn't conflict with that. The trouble really arises over the degree to which we could ever prove an Intelligent Designer is involved - and accordingly whether or not the resulting theory would be science or religion.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So we have 98% of our DNA in common with Chimps? In real life we take existing designs and do slight modifications to create totaly new products. Why wouldn't God do the same?
Because, for example, chimp DNA is an absolute crock? We usually do not do slight modifications to designs that just barely work! Just consider the Vitamin C thing, for example.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like Xap said, the real issue isn't really whether or not ID is possible. The main issue is whether or not it should be on the same level as science.
In my opinion, it is not. ID is extremely difficult, if not impossible to prove. ID really doesn't make any statements that lend themselves to being tested, and for that reason many people do not want it taught as science.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with your argument as I see it is this:
Ideally, Intelligent Design is exactly the "both are correct" answer you're looking for. It accepts natural selection as a method of evolution but also relies on some guiding force to push things in a certain direction and/or cross the gaps.
The issue with any conflict with strict Natural Selection proponents is that they would believe NS is the ONLY method of evolution. this is not to say that anyone believing in natural selection can't believe in ID (on the contrary, you need to accept NS to an extent to accept ID in it's pure form).
A secondary issue with any kind of "official" "scientific" statements/studies/teachings on the matter is that ID delves too far into the non-scientific by definition and arguably necessity, but it breaks the scientific method.
Look at it this way: I want to PROVE that my theory of evolution is correct. If the real explanation for the gaps is that God did it I can't prove that for or against... If it turns out that things are completely explainable through natural selection I CAN actually prove that (even though such does not appear to be the case). In terms of pure science, ID is too much of a cop-out even if it's true and you do believe it. By proposing ID you're necessarily relying on faith to some extent or another (whether it's faith in God, Karma, Martians, etc...)
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another issue is, let's assume for a moment that some supernatural force does occasionally intervene. How would you be able to tell? If you can't tell the difference - then how is this in any way a meaningful statement? If there is no measurable difference, then you've gone into IPU territory. Watch out for the horns.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A large part of the problem is that "ID" right now is the thing that a large number of dishonest, anti-intellectual christian activists are using to force their ignorance and views (especially creationism) onto other people and into inappropriate contexts.
It's not so much that the idea of ID is wrong (although that of it being a science is), but that many of the strong proponents of it are the updated versions of book burning flat earthers.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM - What Vitamin C Thing? (just curious) MrSquicky - Very opinionated response... extremely worded to make your point?
I tend to agree with the view (KoM too if I read correctly) that a truly Intelligent Designer would be so intelligent and so capable that we would never be able to see the evidence of their work. Logically (to me anyway) it would make sense that the ID, in order to be most effective, would want to avoid being known except in cases where it was important to our development along the designated path. This is not unlike our current theories and successes in the area of creating our own Artificial Intelligences. Many pleasantly surprising results have been seen when a machine or swarm of machines is/are given a few rules and allowed to develop through the inputs received from the outside environment without too much of the designer's further input (see the A.L.I.C.E. bot & Swarm-Intelligence Theory).
Would it be too much of a leap to think that an ID --with the sorts of powers we attribute to a God-- might, in fact, use this same strategy? Perhaps the Laws of our Universe are the rules of our ID, and perhaps "Evolution" is a pleasant side effect of swarming atoms, or directed molecular development -- like "teaching life" by creating RNA ("RNA World Theory") from a "primordial soup" much the way the A.L.I.C.E. bot was originally taught ways to interact with other people by its programmer.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Infrared, No, I almost taking that description from their own words. See, for example, The Wedge Document.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JLM: Since both sides seem to fear so greatly the teaching of the other's ideas, they probably don't have a strong belief in them themselves. Otherwise, Darwinist's wouldn't care if ID or creatinism was taught, and vice versa.
This seems like gross oversimplification to me.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know, you may as well say, they shouldn't care if people teach that the earth is the center of the universe.
There is nothing to ID. The only statement it makes is "Maybe God did it." Which is fine, but it's not exactly something that requires teaching. The kids who believe it already believe it and the ones who don't aren't going to. It doesn't actually add anything to the educational experience, except allowing the Christians to mark their territory.
One of the main reasons why people are concerned about this is that we don't want science education in this country to take on the quality of schools in, say, Kansas.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Do you have any tests that one might perform to validate your large list of assumptions?
For instance:
"it would make sense that the ID, in order to be most effective, would want to avoid being known except in cases where it was important to our development along the designated path"
Can we test to see if that, in fact, is the most effective approach to development along a designated path? Personally, I always thought that guideposts stating "THIS IS THE DESIGNATED PATH" were always better...
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Infrared, No, I almost taking that description from their own words. See, for example, The Wedge Document.
MrSquicky - Wow, guess you're right about some people.
It took me a quick google to confirm that the Discovery Institute is a conservative Christian organization. As we see in one of their featured publications sometimes this sort of debate comes down to argument with the use of extremist examples to make a point. Just because the foundation (obviously) supports, and was founded by, several extremists doesn't mean that ideas they support (or even pioneer) should be written-off.
Let me clarify something though; I do not agree with the theories of Creationism or even Intelligent Design themselves. Darwin's theories have far too much supportive evidence and are far too general to be untrue. However, I do not close my mind to the possibility that Darwin could have been (and I'll bet heavily that he was) only scratching the surface. Personally I tend to agree with punctuated equilibria and will adjust my beliefs as new credible evidence presents itself.
What seems to be the more pressing issue is that of what to teach our kids publicly. I say let them learn the evidence. Teach biology within the realm of theory rather than telling them Darwin or The Bible is the one true answer. We see fossil records; we see apparent divergence of species; we see inexplicable punctuations in evolution; we see periods in time that are mysteriously unrecorded. When they get older -- if they are people in positions where it matters what they believe -- they will be able to weigh the facts and choose for themselves. Christians and scientists alike have to stop trying to force things down peoples' throats... state your case making it as clear as possible, and if others don't see things your way, you must agree to disagree.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boothby171 - guideposts would be nice, but we're talking about a very complex system here. We've seen (in past genetic experiments) what happens when you try to just throw "features" into a living system... there are far too many unforseeable effects that could occur. We, therefore, allow systems to create their own results through a selection process that controls for the characteristics we want. Sure, a God could just destroy everyone not meeting the requirements (in guidepost fashion)... it could possibly be just as effective as working behind-the-scenes.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay - Of Pandas and People... is quite the amusing read.
As I read more about them, I think the Discovery Institute focuses so much on ID because it is one of their best bets to keep from losing faith to science's methods of constantly reaffirming its conclusions with hard evidence.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I'm not a proponent of ID, I don't see why discussing the issue once for a science class period would really be detrimental to the quality of education as MySquicky is implying.
In my opinion, ID is not science. However, what it does do is challenge the status quo. In pointing out current gaps in evolutionary theory it causes people to question and try to find answers, it also helps them to think outside the box. When confronted with these questions, I really doubt the student would say, "Wow, God must have done it. Let's look at something else." I'm sure that current debate has prodded many people to investigate and aquire more breadth and depth to their understading of the evolution and natural selection theories. Isn't all that good for science?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not what you would call satisfied with the quality of science education in our country. I think we should improve it.
I don't know so much about how the rather esoteric "gaps" in evolutionary theory is understandable or useful enough to include in a high school science curiculumn, but let's say that I think it belongs. So, okay, I think we should teach kids about the "gaps" in evolutionary theory.
But here's the thing. My solutions to these problems are as follows 1) teach science better 2) teach about the gaps. I don't see how including ID is necessary or even beneficial for either of these goals. Both of them can be fully accomplished without any reference whatsoever to ID and I ahve problems seeing how using ID for this purpose is anywhere near the optimal solution.
For one thing, it's a loaded issue and one that is currently being pushed by a large group of people who seem to have little understand but much contempt for science and in order to fulfill a wider agenda. Second, the "gaps" identified by the ID movement have so far been either logically unsound, not consistent with the evidence, or swiftly disproven. So, teaching the ID movements "gaps" would just be giving kids bad information. Third, ID is hardly the clearest example of the principles you want to teach. Other things would serve as much better examples.
Christianity, especially American Christianity, has long had strong tendencies towards pro-ignorance, anti-intellecutal, anti-science positions. This is far from an isolated case, as the Wedge Document and certain other statements from Christian advocy groups have made clear. This is more a spearhead for them to push a wider agenda.
The areas where they have much wider sway, like Kansas, have really poor track records in science education. I worry about the effects of giving them wider sway in other places almost as much as I worry about the seeming acceptance of groups that are so blatantly dishonest and irresponsible.
There's a lot out there that challenges the status quo for science. Alien abduction (including extensive anal probing), cattle mutilation, crop circles, Atlantis, Timecube, Zeus and the pantheon of Roman gods, etc.
Which ones should we include? How do we pick 'em?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me reiterate. I am not a proponent of ID. I'm not a proponent of ID. I'm not suggesting it be taught in science class. I'm not suggesting it be taught in science class. I was just trying to look on the bright side.
But it looks like everything is a slippery slope to some people. I'm sure that if the ID'ers get their way, there will be extensive anal probing by teachers dressed as aliens in science classrooms across the country (especially in Kansas).
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it'd make a pretty interesting philosophy class. There are probably implications no one has thought of.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
