Evolution VS. Intelligent Design

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

For the last several months this subject resurfaced in my thoughts. One can hear both sides of the debate and find some strong arguments.

 

What is your thought?

[CristyCurves 169032]

For the last several months this subject resurfaced in my thoughts. One can hear both sides of the debate and find some strong arguments.

 

What is your thought?

We all started from somewhere and discussing science can certainly become a complicated and interesting topic. Both make sense. I found this interesting article that explains that perhaps they are not so far apart.

http://www.onelife.com/evolve/darwin.html

 

I'm not sure what I believe though, science can be hard to dispute, there was a 1.8 million yr old fossil of a cranium found in the Republic of Georgia this month so..

Having very religious family members who always have a sound and reasonable explanation of how and why God does this and that's causes me to question science from time to time so...

Perhaps I'll know after I leave this earth. One thing I absolutely believe and will never falter from is that humans are not the be all and end all , but one of many species on this planet. We are no more or less important than any other species and I think many have lost sight of the importance of our eco system as a whole and how the loss of other species will ultimately impact us and instead become believers in exceptionalism which I think is stupid!

Great topic!!

[Guest realnicehat]

If I'd known this was get all philoscientifical I would have minded my own business.

[Brad 49548]

A dangerous topic, as people tend to get emotionally involved, but I'll weigh in and will try to stay respectful.

 

Intelligent design is sadly the result of a number of fallacies. I personally think, perhaps subconsciously, a lot of people believe in it because of a fear that evolution undercuts their religious beliefs, and so they latch on to this as a way of maintaining them. Now, I'm not religious myself, but I do like to point out that evolution and god are not incompatible. Evolution speaks to how life develops; it does not make a claim on its origin.

 

Proponents of intelligent design claim that the complexity of life cannot be explained by evolution. This is an assumption; there is no scientific evidence supporting it. Very often the examples provided of things that are surely too complex to have come about without a divine guiding hand are simply misunderstood. The eye is a common example used by those favouring intelligent designed. "How or why could something so complex have come about on its own? Surely it's function is too intricate and specific to have developed without a guiding hand." But they forget the eye didn't just become its current form all at once. Vision as we know it would have started as simple as something being able to sense which direction light is coming from. A feature which you can imagine would be useful and so passed on. It would only be over untold generations that it such a thing would slowly gain complexity and function and become what we know as the eye today.

 

But even for those things we don't have clear explanations for yet are not a point in favour of intelligent design. Lack of knowledge does not equal proof of a divine hand. Throughout history anything that couldn't be readily explained was given divine cause. Whether it's saying thunder is the gods fighting or a birds wings could not have come about naturally, it amounts to about the same thing.

 

Intelligent design is also very selective in it's examples and arguments. True science forces itself to conform to evidence. But similar to how we tend to latch on to news that supports the sports team or politician we like and ignore their flaws (ever notice how everyone always thinks the refs are biased against their team and the news against their political beliefs?), intelligent design relies on misrepresenting facts, cherry picking data, misrepresenting evolution, and ignoring valid science.

 

It basically comes down to this: yes, it is possible there is a god behind the design of all things. Evolution makes no claim about the existence of a god. That is not what evolution is about. A person can have faith in whatever higher power they wish, but just because a person believes there is a god behind it all does not mean it should be taught or considered as science.

[Guest Ou**or**n]

Ockhams razor - the natural world as it exists is more simple that a being capable of creating it.

[Philander39 3705]

A few years ago the PBS program NOVA had an excellent episode on this subject. It really showed some of the weaknesses in the intelligent design logic and the fact that many of the issues which proponents had argued were "un-explainable" had actually been explained in earlier research.

 

Here is the link

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

 

As someone who has a background in science, I can see the allure of intelligent design as it answers hard questions. At the same time, I am stunned by how many little things that had to go our way to get us here in this time and place.

[Boomer 33202]

I don't know quite where I fit into the religious continuum, but still buy into the theory of evolution. There is just too much empirical data to discount evolution as the way the human race has evolved. Too buy into the creationist theory one must have an unassailable faith which I think limits the ability to fairly explore the other option based on science.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

I'll weigh in on the side of evolution for how we got here from lesser life forms.

 

BUT, how did life originally start? What supplied the original ingredients that started life here? Was there a "design" to that or was it just random chance, which seems just as mind boggling as intelligent design. The universe is nearly 14 billion years. Who can say our world and millions more were'nt seeded intentionally by intelligent life that's many millions of years more advanced than us. Look how far our technology advanced in a hundred years. After a million years of advancement will we still view our physical world and our current understanding of science and physics in the same way? That's a rhetorical question, in my mind.

[MightyPen 67414]

But who created nature? ;)

Not "who", but "what". Why did the big bang happen at all?

 

And the answer could be: Colliding branes, dude... colliding branes. :)

[Ice4fun 78396]

I come from a religious background but I have to go with Evolution. That said I am not sure there is a need to prove that those who believe in Intelligent Design are wrong. The belief in a higher power has provided people with comfort for eons as people try to find a way to understand what current knowledge can't explain to them as knowledge continues to expand so will their acceptance if evolution.

 

I know that religious radicals have caused much chaos over the years and I am in no way supporting the religious right. I just think there is room in the world for varying opinions and it is not the ones with knowledge on their side who should be trying to limit the expression of opinion even if it us uninformed.

 

Again just my thoughts....

[Katherine of Halifax 113932]

Evolution happens naturally. It is my personal opinion we all come into this life with a pre determined contract. I signed a contract , choose my life and promised to do certain things . Some things I have perfected and some I have not. The areas I have failed in will be brought to the my next life time . I also believe the areas we are weak in we may struggle with during this incarnation.

 

Most importantly, higher levels of awareness and consciousness is the key. We are all so much more that our parents and grandparents as they clung to old paradigms . We can do and achieve anything so lets believe in ourselves and our own powers of intention and strong beliefs in self.

 

Sorry probably a lot for general population , sorry for to much depth . It really is a simple issue ( to me) and sorry for my depth that is not mostly wanted

[cyclo 30131]

Intelligent Design claims to be a scientific theory rather than a philosophy. That means that Intelligent Design claims should be able to be tested with experiments and the results of these experiments should be able to be reproduced by others, but... The supporters of Intelligent Design have not had their work peer reviewed, they haven't published their data and they haven't been published in any scientific journals.

 

Since Intelligent Design can't produce any physical evidence, it's a philosophy, not a science. There's nothing wrong with holding various philosophical beliefs. Philosophical views can be enjoyably discussed and debated, but you won't be able to prove or disprove anything about the physical world.

 

At the same time, I am stunned by how many little things that had to go our way to get us here in this time and place.

 

Human evolution is certainly amazing. I understand why it seems like an overwhelmingly amazing series of lucky breaks. In part that's because we tend to overlook all the evolutionary "failures", the "dead ends". Physical evidence indicates natural selection has weeded out approximately 20 failed hominid species over the last 6M years. So in addition to a lot of things going "right" in the evolution of Homo Sapiens, a lot of things also went wrong for other hominid species. The same applies to thousands upon thousands of other species. Why would an Intelligent Designer produce so many failures? That's just a rhetorical question ;-)

 

A robust theory of nature should be able to describe the conditions that have lead to species success as well as species failure. Evolution and Natural Selection provide that, Intelligent Design doesn't.

 

I realize that Intelligent Design also attempts to explain other natural phenomena (origin and physical laws of the universe for example) but evolution is the most common battle ground so I've limited my comments to that.

[MightyPen 67414]

Oh, I agree, this is a good one! :)

 

You simply can't have a serious conversation about this without addressing the consequences of what you believe about the origins of the universe

I both agree and disagree with that. I think a good question to ask of a partner in a conversation is: "Will we be guided foremost by evidence, or by anticipating the consequences of where that evidence leads us?" It's quite possible to say "we'll go only with the evidence," and then you can construct your conclusions without worrying about their implications. Human beings find this very hard to do though, especially when something DOES carry secondary moral implications like this subject. For a lot of people those things eventually loom too large to ignore. But not all people, all of the time.

 

But this question presumes that there needs to be a reason for it, or for anything. The universe doesn't need to exist for a reason. It just exists.

It's possible that the existence of the universe is something beyond cause and effect as we understand it. If nothing else, that's a consequence of our capacity for understanding, and not just the nature of the universe. After all, we're each trying to use a few pounds of jellied meat lodged inside our skulls to understand the nature and origin of EVERYTHING -- and nothing promises that we're capable of comprehending the answer (if there is one as we use the term), any more than one of the dogs currently at my feet could.

 

That said though, I don't think we should throw our hands up just yet -- because we haven't excluded the possibility that the universe is the effect of a comprehensible, or at least mathematically and scientifically credible, cause. The whole brane thing is a stab at that understanding, and with some mathematical backing too. "Hey, here's a system that could give rise to everything, and the math even works." I'd settle for a good model like that, before reaching for "GODDIDIT" or "JUSTBECAUSE".

 

Of course, this approach does lead to some questions and conclusions that are going to make many - or most - people profoundly uncomfortable.

Yup. Most people received instruction about The Big Things from various authorities from a young age -- "Marry! Procreate! Tithe! And you'll be alright", and built their world on those foundations of faith in prevailing institutions. More importantly, their social groups rewarded such acceptance, and punished deviations; and we're fundamentally social creatures who want a place in the pack.

 

When you start to poke at the foundations of those beliefs ("Hey, maybe nobody and nothing is really in charge of all this, and we can all just do what we want with our lives!"), you encounter an emotional wall that's not about abstract philosophy, but is instead protecting people's identities. And they don't give those up easily.

[Guest webothscore]

The thing is kids soak up info like sponges, so if you grew up with religion, you may tend to believe that you could pay for your wrongdoings in the next life (if one exists). I went to Catholic schools and prayed and all that and like many, not all, church slipped over the years and later on we start to question things. There are so many stresses in life that I care not to put too much time into "figuring things out". All I know is that if I do something wrong and I feel bad about it, that's probably a good thing. Science is magnificent! Love to see how things work and I love hearing about breakthroughs. Figuring out life is likely impossible. If we do, it could turn ugly. Maybe ignorance is bliss :) If we all try and contribute to life itself without stepping on each other, that's true evolution, religious or scientific....

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

But this question presumes that there needs to be a reason for it, or for anything. The universe doesn't need to exist for a reason. It just exists.

 

If this were assumed to be the truth by everyone (i,e. no need for a reason for anything), then there would have been no science at all!

[Phaedrus 209521]

I both agree and disagree with that. I think a good question to ask of a partner in a conversation is: "Will we be guided foremost by evidence, or by anticipating the consequences of where that evidence leads us?"

 

I think that's a good question, but not of much practical use.

 

If we're going to make sure we end up where we want to be, then the whole conversation is an exercise in futility and an utter waste of time. If you have a predetermined outcome, regardless of the evidence, then how can you possibly learn or discover anything?

 

I think most people know this, on a gut level, and so they'll claim that they're following the first option. But as you say...

 

Human beings find this very hard to do though, especially when something DOES carry secondary moral implications like this subject. For a lot of people those things eventually loom too large to ignore. But not all people, all of the time.

 

Yup.

 

It's possible that the existence of the universe is something beyond cause and effect as we understand it.

 

Sure, it's possible. But this is where Occam's Razor comes in: given that we don't know, and have no evidence either way; it is not merely unnecessary to make stuff up; it's positively obstructive to future progress, especially when new evidence arises that contradicts the things that were previously invented without evidence but are now believed by some to be true, and people are unwilling to let go of their previous belief in the face of even compelling evidence against it.

 

What's much better - but people seem unwilling to do - is to simply say, "I don't know." We don't have to have an explanation for everything, right now. It's OK to leave questions open.

 

This is not to say that we can't speculate and come up with hypotheses that fit the available evidence... but we have to be prepared to ditch those hypotheses in the light of new evidence, and to be useful a hypothesis has to make predictions that can then be tested to see how correct it turns out to be.

 

When you start to poke at the foundations of those beliefs ("Hey, maybe nobody and nothing is really in charge of all this, and we can all just do what we want with our lives!"), you encounter an emotional wall that's not about abstract philosophy, but is instead protecting people's identities. And they don't give those up easily.

 

Yes. And this is where ID comes from; it's an attempt to reconcile current belief and identity with thus-far-unrefuted evidence. Alas, it doesn't work.

 

If this were assumed to be the truth by everyone (i,e. no need for a reason for anything), then there would have been no science at all!

 

Why on earth would you say that? We can work out how things like gravity and evolution and electromagnetism and chemistry work (and everything else, for that matter) without making assumptions or even caring about the motive or reason, if any, behind them.

 

Now if you'd said "philosophy" then I may or may not have agreed, and if you'd said "religion" then I definitely would have done, but "science"? Not only does it carry on regardless, it's what creates this debate in the first place by challenging what had been assumed to be true for millennia.

[qwertyaccount 15793]

I was raised as a Christian.

 

My early morning, pre-coffee thought is that:

 

a) intelligent designers design intelligent things.

b) The world is full of idiots.

 

Thus, it must be evolution.

 

I'm going to burn in hell :)

[craig101 3213]

I don't think any of you are real. I'm having a bad dream and when I wake up all of you will be gone.

 

Just kidding.

 

Were all actually in the Matrix. Can't wait till I get out!

[cyclo 30131]

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

But this question presumes that there needs to be a reason for it, or for anything. The universe doesn't need to exist for a reason. It just exists.

 

 

If this were assumed to be the truth by everyone (i,e. no need for a reason for anything), then there would have been no science at all!

 

In a sense I agree with your comment Miss TJ. Most of us look for "meaning", "purpose" and "reasons". If you look at the history of science, initially it focused on the "meaning or purpose of life" and was very wrapped up in religious beliefs. "Science" as a body of knowledge and a methodology for describing the physical world was in its infancy and didn't look like it does now.

 

As it became clear that religious beliefs on the order and functioning of the cosmos were inconsistent with physical observations (think Copernicus and Galileo), scientific investigation became less restricted by religious beliefs about the meaning and purpose of life. Scientific thought became aligned with more secular philosophical thoughts. Of course, eventually, many abstract philosophical ideas, were shown to have an incorrect understanding of the physical world.

 

These days, science no longer concerns itself with metaphysical questions such as... the meaning of life... why the universe exists... what is its/our purpose. Those questions have been left for religion and philosophy. Scientific research and the body of knowledge we call "science" now focuses on "how" the physical world works, not why it works that way. For example evolution and relativity are successful theories describing how aspects of biology and physics work. Neither one however attempts to explain why the speed of light is constant or why we have DNA.

 

So while science may have its origins in seeking the reason or purpose of life/nature, that's no longer the case. If you ask most scientists to describe their work, they also wouldn't say they are answering questions of meaning or the purpose of existence. On the other hand, if you ask them if they have any religious or philosophical beliefs, most would say they do. Just like everyone else, they also seek meaning and purpose, they just realize it won't be found in a lab or in the field.

[craig101 3213]

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

But this question presumes that there needs to be a reason for it, or for anything. The universe doesn't need to exist for a reason. It just exists.

 

 

 

 

In a sense I agree with your comment Miss TJ. Most of us look for "meaning", "purpose" and "reasons". If you look at the history of science, initially it focused on the "meaning or purpose of life" and was very wrapped up in religious beliefs. "Science" as a body of knowledge and a methodology for describing the physical world was in its infancy and didn't look like it does now.

 

As it became clear that religious beliefs on the order and functioning of the cosmos were inconsistent with physical observations (think Copernicus and Galileo), scientific investigation became less restricted by religious beliefs about the meaning and purpose of life. Scientific thought became aligned with more secular philosophical thoughts. Of course, eventually, many abstract philosophical ideas, were shown to have an incorrect understanding of the physical world.

 

These days, science no longer concerns itself with metaphysical questions such as... the meaning of life... why the universe exists... what is its/our purpose. Those questions have been left for religion and philosophy. Scientific research and the body of knowledge we call "science" now focuses on "how" the physical world works, not why it works that way. For example evolution and relativity are successful theories describing how aspects of biology and physics work. Neither one however attempts to explain why the speed of light is constant or why we have DNA.

 

So while science may have its origins in seeking the reason or purpose of life/nature, that's no longer the case. If you ask most scientists to describe their work, they also wouldn't say they are answering questions of meaning or the purpose of existence. On the other hand, if you ask them if they have any religious or philosophical beliefs, most would say they do. Just like everyone else, they also seek meaning and purpose, they just realize it won't be found in a lab or in the field.

 

Science may not answer all the questions but it at leasts eliminates other answers that are suggested.

[Eric Northman 16522]

Funny how everyone is like, "Ooh, controversial subject..." and yet no controversy.

 

Clearly what's controversial in the US South is not controversial in Canada. I blame our educational system.

 

I've heard of a concept called "The God of the Gaps" where creationists keep getting pigeonholed into smaller and smaller 'gaps'. "Well, you scientists are so smart, then explain the gap in the fossil record between austrolopithicus afarensis and some other fossil..." or whatever.

 

I enjoy the concept because when I ride my motorcycle, I too worship "The God of the Gaps," who, in his mighty wisdom, sees fit to grant me gaps in traffic just big enough to allow me to commute at 150 when everyone else is doing 100. Blessed be his speedy goodness.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

Why on earth would you say that? We can work out how things like gravity and evolution and electromagnetism and chemistry work (and everything else, for that matter) without making assumptions or even caring about the motive or reason, if any, behind them.

 

Now if you'd said "philosophy" then I may or may not have agreed, and if you'd said "religion" then I definitely would have done, but "science"? Not only does it carry on regardless, it's what creates this debate in the first place by challenging what had been assumed to be true for millennia.

 

Then let's be scientific and not wonder about my motives and reasons!

 

If science today will exercise the same paternity the Church adopted for many centuries then it would ultimately fall apart as the method of explanation. We can't fill gaps in our knowledge by saying "it is just this way" nor can we camouflage the real motives behind science.

 

The "things" you have described (gravity, evolution, electromagnetism) were discovered as an answer to buzzing questions made through observation.

[MightyPen 67414]

I think that [agreeing to a discussion based on evidence vs. fear of its implications] is a good question, but not of much practical use ... If we're going to make sure we end up where we want to be, then the whole conversation is an exercise in futility and an utter waste of time.

But I'm only suggesting two people agree upon the method of inquiry -- not the set of conclusions that may be reached by using them. If two people can't agree on the principles underlying inquiry, then they'll just talk past each other and really won't get anywhere. There's still a broad range of conclusions possible from strictly interpreting evidence and trying, as much as possible, to avoid bias.

 

Sure, [that the universe is cause-less is] possible. But this is where Occam's Razor comes in...

See that's kind of funny, because I thought when I said "It's possible that the existence of the universe is something beyond cause and effect as we understand it" that I was paraphrasing your position... based on this:

 

But this question presumes that there needs to be a reason for it, or for anything. The universe doesn't need to exist for a reason. It just exists.

... which I took to be a committed statement of fact, and a final position, rather than a statement about the limits of our current knowledge. You're absolutely right, though, that the simple answer "we don't know" is very often the best one, and perfectly valid, but leaves a lot of people deeply uncomfortable. Some people think a wild guess has more value than saying "I don't know." But they're usually wrong.

 

(I think this, by the way, might be the same reason Miss Jane thought you were dismissing inquiry entirely with that statement and thus undermining science, rather than advocating the entirely "I don't know is okay" position.)

 

Fundamentally, I think we agree here.

[Phaedrus 209521]

For example evolution and relativity are successful theories describing how aspects of biology and physics work. Neither one however attempts to explain why the speed of light is constant or why we have DNA.

 

Or to generalize: how come the universe is the way it is? Why is it that way?

 

I'm inclined to think the best answer to that is the weak anthropic principle: if the universe had turned out even slightly different, we wouldn't be here to ask questions like that :) It wasn't inevitable that things would turn out this way... they just did.

 

So while science may have its origins in seeking the reason or purpose of life/nature, that's no longer the case. If you ask most scientists to describe their work, they also wouldn't say they are answering questions of meaning or the purpose of existence. On the other hand, if you ask them if they have any religious or philosophical beliefs, most would say they do. Just like everyone else, they also seek meaning and purpose, they just realize it won't be found in a lab or in the field.

 

Well... things are actually swinging back a bit, somewhat. While classical (Newtonian) physics provides definite answers to everything (in principle), quantum mechanics contains a serious loophole that you can fit a god into if you like. Rather than predicting events, quantum theory predicts probabilities of events. That means that for everything that happens at the subatomic level, you can't predict any particular result, any more than you can predict the result of a coin toss or a roll of the dice. And that leaves a lot of scope for Lady Luck, or any other deity you care to mention.

 

Funny how everyone is like, "Ooh, controversial subject..." and yet no controversy.

 

Well... not yet. But I think from their posts that both Christy and Katherine would tend to disagree with the thrust of the majority of the posts in this thread, and I daresay that there are others who have chosen to say nothing but probably disagree vehemently with some of us.

 

I'm painfully aware that some of the arguments I'm making are very much along the lines of, "This set of beliefs is just wrong", and that people who hold those beliefs are probably not going to like this very much, even if they choose to refrain from escalation.

 

I enjoy the concept because when I ride my motorcycle, I too worship "The God of the Gaps," who, in his mighty wisdom, sees fit to grant me gaps in traffic just big enough to allow me to commute at 150 when everyone else is doing 100. Blessed be his speedy goodness.

 

Ah, but as the gaps get ever smaller... :)

 

Then let's be scientific and not wonder about my motives and reasons!

 

Your motive are indeed irrelevant to the discussion. But since we're being scientific, your reasoning is very relevant indeed. I simply don't understand the basis for your assertion that a lack of overarching purpose to the universe precludes the existence of science.

 

If science today will exercise the same paternity the Church adopted for many centuries then it would ultimately fall apart as the method of explanation.

 

Absolutely: but that's why science has done so well over the last couple of centuries. Dissent from the current orthodoxy (provided it's backed by evidence and reason) is positively welcomed, and indeed is what leads to progress. Nothing needs to be taken on trust; everything that is asserted can be, and has been, proven - and the proof is there to be challenged by anyone who wishes to have a go.

 

And that's precisely the opposite of how organized religion works.

 

We can't fill gaps in our knowledge by saying "it is just this way" nor can we camouflage the real motives behind science.

 

So what do you consider "the real motives behind science" to be? And why?

 

You're absolutely right, though, that the simple answer "we don't know" is very often the best one, and perfectly valid, but leaves a lot of people deeply uncomfortable. Some people think a wild guess has more value than saying "I don't know." But they're usually wrong.

 

Yes, this is what I'm getting at.

 

(I think this, by the way, might be the same reason Miss Jane thought you were dismissing inquiry entirely with that statement and thus undermining science, rather than advocating the entirely "I don't know is okay" position.)

 

Actually, re-reading my previous post... it's definitely suffering from having been written at stupid-o'-clock in the morning. I can only plead jetlag.

 

Fundamentally, I think we agree here.

 

Yes, I think we do.

[jzed 110]

Intelligent design explains nothing, is untestable and panders to those that think their great, great grandpa frolicked with dinosaurs. Science asks and attempts to answer with hard evidence that is always open to question if new evidence comes to light. Dogma, and the end of questioning because you know all the answers, versus science, and tested answers, always open to more questions. I'll go with science, every time.