|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is it intelligent to design evolvable species? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
I get the idea to ask this question from a recent entry in the Panda's Thumb. Someone said in a feedback, that we should ask the ID people if they consider evolution as evidence of intelligent design. After some thinking, it made perfect sense to me.
On to the question, for everyone evo and cre and those too ambiguous to be pigeonholed into any of the two: Do you think it is intelligent to design species that can evolve? Surely, an intelligent designer would be able to design lineages of animals, plants, bacteria etc. that responds to changes in the environment, so that the intelligent designer don't have to say "Duh! The giraffes or insert other intelligently designed creature of your choice here went extinct because of a 1 degree temperature rise again! Oh well, back to the drawing board." Personally I think it is more intelligent to design things that can evolve. But I want to know your views. Mighty admins, this can go to the ID forum, please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4755 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but aren't you one of those that don't believe in mutation, natural selection, or changes in allele frequencies in populations?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1666 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
i think this isn't even a subject of debate. we've been intelligently designing species within the natural processes of evolution for several thousand years.
artificial selection, selective breeding, and genetic engineering are all entirely consistent with evolution. but yes, i think a TRULY intelligent designer (god) would be intelligent enough to design something that is adaptable. but that is not proof that such a thing happened. this a god-of-the-gaps type thing. strictly faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9012 From: Canada Joined: |
If the designer doesn't design things to evolve what other choices does s/he/it have?
If the environment is held constant then living things may survive without evolving. But a constant environment is soooo boring. If the environment changes then if living things don't evolve the designer must step in constantly to create new forms to fit the new environment. This could get tedious though I believe it was a suggestion of those who first realized that a single creation didn't work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 6138 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
I think it's a fresh look at the intelligent design thing, very much like the "multiple designer" idea that Panda's thumb were talking about a while back. Unfortunately (like multiple designers) I don't think it stands up to scrutiny. There are just too many extinctions.
If you look at the fossil record, and assume that a Designer wanted things to adapt to the environment then the only conclusion you can make is that ninety-odd percent of all life on earth was very badly designed. There are whole branches of the tree of life that could not adapt quickly enough and have no living representives, hardly a case of intelligence, and definitely a case of "D'Oh!!". The only way around it I can think of is that the designer simply designed the process of random mutation and natural selection, but then there is always the question of how far back that can take us: first cell, first sort-of-cell, first self replicator? If you take it far enough back it's gonna be quite tricky to convince people that a designer is required at all. How are you finding London BTW? This message has been edited by Ooook!, 15-04-2005 10:14 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5355 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
The answer is clearly YES.
Creationists who dont see through to this only get caught up in their own biology. It doesnt mean however that current evolutionary theory is able to change species this way nor would I recommend explict procedures to try to do so. I am interested in ecosytem engineering in which by topographic leveling the intrinsic migration capabilities of species might find for human increases of biomass productivity some artifical selectivity in biodiversity. It is a risky notion indeed but there must be some response of humans to their ecological footprint. We humans can not simply evolve just small feet. Some of the species will be coming along for the ride. The focus of the criticism I would place on changing the Earth's topography and not really on the species that might be able to adapat to higher altitudes
and deserts where soil
might be placed to from which other chemical issues also arise.
There are many legal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 5045 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
On first glance, APRIORI existence of biological mechanisms for adapation (micro-evo) might seem to behoove redemptive ID.
On the other hand, unchecked randomness of mutations (or stellar entropy/evolution) might also behoove a cursing ID, that is, ID promoting universal decay, destruction, and outer darkness forever. But, mega-evolution, extraordinary speciation, hopeful monster mutations, etc., do seem to render untenable the whole EX-NIHILO necessity of ID hypothesis. Personally, I don't see how theistic evos can live with their fallacies. I'd rather be all atheistical-evo or all creo in my faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 162 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes. In fact the only place I can see even a hint of design is at the smallest most basic levels. If you look at the universe you find systems that work and and there I believe we see the hand of a designer. The combination of mutations filtered by natural selection is such a system.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No, Andya is a Theistic Evolutionist of the Muslim persuasion, I believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
If that's the case, my mistake.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Philip writes: On the other hand, unchecked randomness of mutations (or stellar entropy/evolution) might also behoove a cursing ID, that is, ID promoting universal decay, destruction, and outer darkness forever. of course, you forgot natural selection ... the other half of the equation.
Personally, I don't see how theistic evos can live with their fallacies. I'd rather be all atheistical-evo or all creo in my faith. I am assuming that you choose "all creo" based on your wording. I personally don't understand how YEC's (in particular) can live with the obvious contradictions between this belief and the observed facts of an old earth, nor how fundamentalist creos can live with the obvious contradictions between their faith and the observed facts of an old beginning of life from simple cells to the complex organisms that we see about us. but this is off topic. I do have to ask what fallacies? god created the world to be what it is. all science involves is understanding "what it is" and thus there is no conflict between any science and faith. on the other hand, presupposing a conflict where none exists is a logical fallacy. now, to bring this back to the topic (somewhat) -- this is also exactly the position that ID if properly pursued would take. the universe {as it is} is the evidence, and the better we understand it and all it's intricate workings, the better we can understand if we can see evidence of a creation. there is no predisposition for the basic concept of ID to reject any mechanism of any science, including any part of the science of evolution. ps - a priori is two words. enjoy we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
of course it is, and it is also intelligent to use a mechanism to select between specific evolved individuals to consolidate specific features.
ID properly pursued has no arguments with any science: science is a tool for understanding the universe understanding the universe fully and completely and honestly needs to be part of the process of determining whether design can truly be infered, rather than a child seeing patterns because he is looking through a kaleidoscope paradigm. It will be interesting to see if any bonafide IDists answer. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 162 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It will be interesting to see if any bonafide IDists answer. Would you consider me an IDist? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Not really, do you?
To me IDism is a specific faith, usually predicated on an incompletely formulated concept: the faith in the unknown god ... or gods ... or little green aliens acting as god ... or gods ... or little blue aliens acting as god ... etc etc etc but a faith in and of it's own. being an IDist means to forsake any previous faith or face irreconcilable conflicts (godalmighty = fallible green alien pretenders) or an incomplete acceptance of either faith we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025