Intelligent Design

The Core RPGC Main Forum
41

Religion and evolution aren’t mutually exclusive, I’d just like to say, and evolution leaves less up to coincidence than intelligent design. Which is more of a chance and coincidence:

An all powerful being creates creatures just as he wasnts them, but some parts have no apparent youth and begin to disappear more and more frequently through time despite his species never changing.

Or:

Species were, by an all powerful beign or not at your whim, created, and those that had traits that made them more likely to survive survive, and their traits were passed on by DNA to their young, and the process continues until the traits become the norm for the species.

One has no logic explaining anything, the other is an A->B logical set of building blocks. Now, which leaves more up to chance? Oh, right, the first one.

You can have your opinion, but you’re just not supporting it well, is all.

42

The whole point of the school of science is to come up with explanations based on observations and empirical data. Being tentative is, in my opinion, one of the best things about it. It can always be wrong, and thus there is always room for improvement, for progress.

Ah yes, and also, it works.

It works, but it keeps reinventing how it works. Taking science to be the end-all and be-all of knowledge is ignoring the fact that science has been wrong in the past, will be wrong in the future, and is quite possibly wrong now.

The problem with ID is that it’s specifically trying to cross the how/why line

Which is why I don’t subscribe to ID in particular. I don’t think anyone in this thread is trying to promote it, actually. I don’t like calling religion a science.

I find “why” to be a bit of a dodgy question. It sounds merely like a way of trying to get around asking “how” in the first place. It assumes, in the first place, that there is a reason independent of natural causes that something happens.

Yes, it assumes that, because that’s the basis of religion: the assumption that there is something behind everything. And again - where did these “natural causes” come from? Was the universe always like this? How did it get to be like this?

Suffice to say, at some level of evidence we accept that some things aren’t true even though we can’t prove it to be so - the tooth fairy, magic, free lunches (the latter which also exist perfectly well in theory, but never seem to incarnate into the realm of mundane reality).

Quite right - but religion is about faith, not proof. As long as the thing we believe in can be true, it’s enough for us to believe in it. As long as we can say that God either directed evolution, or caused a world to come into being where evolution, so to speak, had already taken place - then we can say it, and remain secure in our faith.

There are many ways to allow God into the picture. Instead of random evolution, for example, we can talk about “directed evolution” - where the selections weren’t natural, but driven by God. The exact same things happened - just the reasons for them happening are different. Or we can talk about God creating an “adult world” the same way he created an “adult Adam” - one where all those messy extinctions and evolutions had, so to speak, already taken place. There are many ways to look at it. Of course, for many scientists, the nonexistence of God is as much a tenet of faith as His existence is for religious people; they can’t prove it, the same way we can’t prove His existence, but they still cling to the notion.

I should note that much of what I’m saying isn’t the quintessential Jewish take on the matter, but there’s a slow build-up of a motion to get Judaism on the ball with evolution and to stop ignoring it and start dealing with it. There’s whole books written on the subject, including a classic one called “Genesis and the Big Bang”.

43

I posit that life was created by the Great Old Ones who came down to Earth from out of space. It is not known whether this was in error or in cosmic jest, for our brains are too feeble and decadent to pierce their manifold motives. I am therefore a proponent of Intelligent Design, yet not a Creationist.

Ia! Ia! Cthulhu ftaghn!

44

Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Chtulhu R’lyeh wgah-nagl ftaghn!
I hear you, brother.

45

Quite right, and the very fact that it <i>can</i> be wrong is why the scientific method is one of the greatest inventions of mankind.

46

Because the Church is the mystical body of Christ, we can from time to time get things right or wrong, if they’re not moral or of faith based that is. I want to point out that I DO NOT subscribe to the idealogy of ID. Cidolfas is correct religion is NOT a science. It’s nature is to answer the questions science can not, and yes I agree that science is there to answer questions religion can not.

47

Quite right, and the very fact that it can be wrong is why the scientific method is one of the greatest inventions of mankind.

I hope no one here is disputing that fact. But science is not the only way to look at the world.

48

Science, relgion, its kinda like their pieces to the same puzzle.

49

Something like intelligence only seems like a coincidence if you fail to realize the vast multitudes of completely different organisms that once existed and no longer do, each incredible in their own right. What is the intelligence of the human brain as compared to the spectacular diversity of reptiles which once overran the planet - and who were wiped out by something that seems like a very convenient coincidence (asteroid/comet) only from a solely human perspective. It’s no different than thinking the Earth is the center of the cosmos simply because you haven’t taken how vast the universe is into consideration. It’s merely one thing that’s happened - a gem to us, no doubt - in the midst of other countless happenings.

Regarding the truthfulness of science, nothing is ever established as being 100% true for all time and eternity, just to an extent of reliable probability. It’s the method of science that endures to gradually reveal how things work, not any one specific tidbit of knowledge picked up along the way.

I’m not an accomodationist in the science vs. religion thing. Many religious subjects very clearly encroach on areas where science can claim clear authority, and more such areas are developing all the time. Take the development of evolutionary psychology which, although it has its flaws and needs work, can describe how certain human behavior developed naturally as a sort of survival trait (think of the family group as one!), where-as religion (many, but not all) will claim some type of providence for this very same occurence. I know a lot of folks won’t want to stomach the idea that some basic features of our lives have no intrinsic morality to them (unless you define all that has happened before human intelligence developed - i.e. natural - as moral). I think the extent I’m willing to consider religion’s validity is if is given the place of admitting its own inapplicabilty to the mechanics of the universe and stop making assertions that depend on them. In other words, renouncing any authority over the material (real) world including the desire to govern the actions of its inhabitants.

And Kraken, von Daaniken would be proud.

50

Science governing the world has not worked very well, the French Revolution and Soviet Union as well as our own government have shown us that.

I understand the vast amount of creatures that lived and died, and yes, I appreciate and acknoweldge them in awe, but the fact is that intelligence is order, it is goodness, it is firm. You might consider order a form of chaos, but that seems a direct attack of the purest form of, humor me here, demonic attack. Not that you. Rogue, are a demon or possessed or anything. Nor the human originator of such a statement.

If order, which is good, is chaos, which is bad, then in retrospect, there is no real right or wrong, it all is based on how we, the individual feel about morals. This argument would lead one to anarchy, which I doubt you are pushing Rogue.

Anarchy is a bane to human existence, it is the debasing of civilization to our purest animalistic form, and could cause our extinction.

I’ll be back in a couple of days, as soon as I bone up on debating, and stronger proofs of God’s existence. Till then see ya all!

Rogue, hopefully I did not insult you.

51

I beg to differ here. Governing based on science, or if you’d like, the facts is a lot better than thinking you are acting by the will of God. President Bush puts God forward as justifying his policies, that doesn’t make them any better or divinely inspired. The ayatollahs claim to act on God’s behalf, bossing around their people.

The French revolution opened the way toward a secular state, after dabbling with “secular religion” and such crap and put forward republican ideals. Did it derail itself? Sure. It’s legacy left a better world though. CCCP started kind of bravely (up until new power-seizing cliques formed) and then went down the drain, causing plenty of grief. Social experiments of multimillion people are tough.

Dead-on! Order and chaos as well as good and bad are relative. On a light note, Michael Moorcock has based his writing career on this duality. Some degree of chaos is necessary in our lives, if we are not to turn into mini West Points. By the way most of anarchy’s proponents still propose a net of rules (otherwise they wouldn’t propose anything), thus defying its definition and making it a reorganisation of society.

[QUOTE=]
I’ll be back in a couple of days, as soon as I bone up on debating, and stronger proofs of God’s existence.[/QUOTE]
Come on, there is no proof of God’s existence. Otherwise people wouldn’t believe in her, they would know she exists. If God wanted to, he would be more than able to write in the sky “hello people” or something like that.

52

Regarding the truthfulness of science, nothing is ever established as being 100% true for all time and eternity, just to an extent of reliable probability. It’s the method of science that endures to gradually reveal how things work, not any one specific tidbit of knowledge picked up along the way.

Exactly - which is why picking any specific theory of science - such as evolution - as absolute truth is disingenuous, given the likeliness that in five hundred years we’ll be laughing that we ever believed something that silly.

In other words, renouncing any authority over the material (real) world including the desire to govern the actions of its inhabitants.

In other words, you’d like religion to essentially say things like “feel spiritual” and “be nice to people” without having any say in anything else whatsoever. Sorry, but that’s not going to fly. It would basically destroy most religions. Claiming that religion has no right to tell anyone anything is remarkably arrogant, considering that science has been wrong just as much as religion has.

You’re perfectly allowed to disagree with religions and their ideas that things are providential - but again, you can’t disprove that these things are providential, nor can you prove that they’re not, because science has no proofs, only theories. Therefore, by you insisting that you’re right and everyone else is not, you’re just as guilty of the thick-headedness you’re ascribing to religions refusing to accommodate science. Maybe you don’t like the ideas, but you can’t give any absolute argument that they’re wrong, in which case you logically must accommodate their position - at least to the extent of admitting that they might be right, and hence people who believe in them have validity.

Science governing the world has not worked very well, the French Revolution and Soviet Union as well as our own government have shown us that.

NO government has ever managed anything like perfection. No matter what the reason behind it is, it always manages to get screwed up. That’s because they’re run by people.

Come on, there is no proof of God’s existence. Otherwise people wouldn’t believe in her, they would know she exists. If God wanted to, he would be more than able to write in the sky “hello people” or something like that.

Rigamarole’s absolutely right. Reminds me of Douglas Adam’s famous Babelfish “proof of God’s nonexistence” - the Babelfish is so amazing that it must be proof of God - but proof denies faith, without faith God is nothing, therefore God does not exist.
There are plenty of indications of God’s existence, especially if you look in religious texts themselves, but no absolute proofs. Anyone who tries is generally just going to make religion look foolish.

53

Hence: anarchy. But that’s a whole other debate. Just thought I’d point it out.

54

Don’t even get me started on anarchy. While I’m damned close to anarchy in my political ideals (libertarian left), to not have any real law with all the shit that we have is absolutely ridiculous. Anarchy means anybody can do anything at any time. That means I could punch you in the face until you lay bleeding in the sidewalk, piss on you, and I’d get absolutely no retribution except from perhaps you or your family or friends. Without a justice system (even a superbly flawed justice system like… oh… all of them), the only choice would be vigelanteism. While I respect vigelantes more than law enforcement in theory, the vigelantes do not necessarily know or even try to know more of the story than their side. They have an agenda, just like the police. Do you want highly scrutinized bullies or do you want bullies that owe no authority to anyone (or even worse, to the highest bidder)?

This also means that corporations will have the most power. I bet you wouldn’t count on that, but its true. Corporations and the rich will be able to afford the weaponry to protect themselves. The poor will stay poor. The middle class will eventually become poor. People would be scared at the possibility that there is no world order and so eventually what would happen is the corporations would become our protectors. Our government. While that would be a nice breach of the facade that they don’t control our government now, it would certainly not be the world you envision.

55

That would be in an immediately started anarchy. If the change occured gradually, over generations, with an increase in social responsibility among the people, they could function without a government. This does not mean there wouldn’t be any laws; anarchy means ‘without archons,’ literally, not without laws. It’s inherently based upon the principle that laws and taboos are well and good, but leaders are the ones who are flawed. Law enforcement, and how it would function, is a widely debated issue, if it is to exist at all.

In Spain, the most successful and idealistic anarchy to have existed so far, there were some types of police, but they were very loosely organized, and barely existed at all.

Anarchy’s most persistant and un-manageable problem is the issue of a military. Without any sort of leaders, and army does not function exactly well, at least it has not in the past. The lack of an organized, effecientdefensive body is what, in the end, caused the Spanish anarchy to fall, as well as many other would be anarchist states to fall in the past. The punching to blood on the sidewalk isn’t as prevelent as people assume and fear it will be, for the most part. Due to most people’s morals, if they’re going to murder or rape someone, the law would or will not get in their way; Japan has a notoriously apathetic/incompetant police force when it comes to dealing with issues like murder, but they still have less murders per year than America, with a much more active police force and government, does by far. The law, generally, won’t stop someone from doing something they already intend to do. Therefore, prevention will not be an issue, the only issue would be punishment, which brings us back to the question of to what degree an organized police force is to exist, if at all.

The corporation thing did not occur in Spain, but it’s one of the few issues where the difference in time periods really makes an impact; this is one of the more serious problems along with anarchy as well. However, as I said, there can be laws to limit corporations, as laws are allowed to function within an anarchy, so long as there aren’t leaders.

Now, while my idealogy runs with anarchy, this is all a very long way off in some idealogic future, with careful building up to it. I’d certainly never try and start an anarchist revolution to overthrow any government now, most places really aren’t ready for it, and would descend fully into chaos. So, for right now, I’m pretty much going to be voting libertarian. But, it’s a nice idea of a direction to build the future into.

56

Anarchy runs into exactly the same problems as any other method of governance: it depends on people. And people, being people, will screw it up. Unfortunately, because there are no laws and no government, they’ll probably manage to screw it up far more than if there were. If we’re talking an ideal world, then monarchy is actually the best way to go: if we had a perfect king, who knew the best thing to do all the time and always had his subjects’ well-being in mind, then he could get it done instantly. But of course we don’t live in such a world.

57

While contributing absolutely nothing useful to the thread, taken literally, the idea that God intended for us to mod ourselves up with cyberware is hilarious to me.

All will become clear in 2011.

58

Yes, because then we’ll get a NEW Big Date. ;D

59

I was mostly referring to UGE babies >_>

60

In the beginning we wondered whether God played dice or not. We found out he did, so the next step is obviously Shadowrun (when he calls his buddies they play a D&D variant as Terry Pratchett revealed).

As it has correctly been pointed out, the problem with all those systems is that they are run by people. If people were perfect, almost every system would work.