Evolution is most likely a part of intelligent design

How about considering the fact that intelligence and design are a natural evolutionary phenomenon. That is a fact. We are proof of it. The question everyone should be asking is: do we define the entire process through our window or do we take into consideration the fact that we are but one step in the process. The latter is more reasonable and scienctific. The former is specie disgressionary and typically humanly egocentric. The latter should be the basis on how the concept of ID is approached. It begs the questions: is intelligence and design a result of the process?, a part of the process? or, at the root of the process? It is a precarious subject however because it does invite religious engadgement. There are those here who are very passionate about the existance or non existance of a higher power.
The discussions suffer for it as does the very reasonable concept I have stated. I believe the ID label to now be detrimental to the concept. It carries too much baggage. One can embrace my understanding and still respect the rights of others in terms of what they believe to be responsible for initiating the process. Any answer arrived at concerning an origin will be unscientific as there will be no evidence. That aspect should be discussed philosophically.Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.

No, logic does not dictate this. We still do not understand why a certain group of chemical reactions based around the element carbon developed into a self replicating phenomenon. Nor do we understand why these replications first began evolving to "survive". Chemical reactions take place all the time. No other chemical reactions result in an evolutionary process that I am aware of. There is nothing logical to be understood about it as of yet. We are clueless as to why what we call organics resulted in evolution. Selective pressures happen to everything. Everything interacts with it's environment. So is the organic process unique or does the universe follow this process? Evolution is happening all around us?
Whergo the ergo? Really? It was inevitable that random chemical reactions would need "instructions"? Inevitable? Where do you cipher this great revelation from? You speak as if this was an inherant property of the ingredients of the organic process. There is no evidence for such a claim.

Since when is biological evolution not chemical? It is in fact chemical evolution. DNA is just a complex molecule based on carbon. If he is saying replication in this instance evolved I can agree. To say it is ergo I cannot. This is the only example of the process we have. We have nothing to compare it to.

Are you saying that simplicity is an argument against intelligence?

Parasomnium (post 21) Made these very sweeping statements: This was not specific to the process many call evolution that is to the best of our knowlegde unique to the earth. This starts with the basic idea of replicators and assumes evolution is logically inevitable.
My comments are right on point. To assume evolution is inevitable is completely illogical. We have no other examples of the evolutionary process. We have no way of knowing what other forms or directions it may take if it occurs elsewhere in the universe. If Parasomnium were to clarify and explain that the comments were earth evolution specific, I would have not have had reason to comment since where ever you go there you are. In other words, earth evolution is proof of itself. No kidding.
Parasomnium never took into consideration that replication may occur without evolution and end replication with evolution never taking place. There are countless examples of chemical processes we call species not adapting to change, and ceasing replication right here on earth. It's called extinction. If it were said that imperfect replicators have the potential to evolve I could agree with that. Beyond this all is speculation. The annology to glass breaking further generalized the nature of the comments.

Let me explain.Replicators: We have no corner on the rules governing replication in the universe. We are clueless on the subject. We are only mildly self educated on the one example we know. I simply consider all the various unexpected structures and states of matter we are running into as we study our universe...and we have seen so little. I consider the unique and unexpected ways life survives on this earth. I consider that the process on the earth we call evolution is just another chemical process. Chemical replication may have happened, will happened or, may be happening somewhere. What form it may take and wether or not it evolves or is capable or likely to evolve we have no way of knowing. To extrapolate a conclusion as Para has from the only example we have is a very good example of inductive logic. Para's point has no basis in fact and is meaningless accept in this sense.
If Para uses the direction of these comments to state: "if evolution as we know it were to occur elsewhere then evolution of imperfect replicators would occur elsewhere" they would be correct....a pointless no brainer. This is the only thing Para's statements will logically support. They are earth evolution specific. They are derived from one source. To induce that all scenarios, if they occur past,present or future, will follow our rules is not logical. We do not know what all the rules governing this process are yet let alone what is possible.
Another thing to consider...as I see someone has succeeded in building crude facimilies of RNA.....even if we recreate life as we know it, it only succeeds in demonstrating that a product of the evolutionary process can continue the process. We have to see it occur elsewhere...independantly. We simply like engadging in self affiming activities. We and our evolutionary process are the center of everything therefore the universe and all imperfect replicators if they exist must follow our model..right?

All environments have limited resources. All environments have selective pressure. Only one planetary environment has developed RNA and DNA that we know of. You negleted to include extiction.
Perhaps one can say that evolution may be a property of imperfect replicators as a whole. When/if this unique chemical process arises evolution may happen. Pehaps more precisely, imperfect replication IS evolution. Glass and gravity are not a good annology. Your observation has no obviating implication what so ever on the question of instruction. One must first define instuction and do it within the framework of evolution.
One can say that imperfection in replication is all the instruction needed to become evolutionary. It depends on what view one takes.

A computer simulation is quite removed from actual events. The point was understood but glass breaking is a very poor choice.When soda,lime and sand come together under the right conditions and form self replicating units that evolve....now you have something.
Otherwise glass breaking must be compared to a bug hitting a windshield or a person falling from a plane and splattering on the ground. And again....there is nothing here that indicates either way if intelligence is involved or not. A point of view in either direction is simply a matter of opinion/belief.Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.

Are you saying that the "code" is somehow separate from the universe?
Please explain.