Dichotomy: Evolution & ID

Both Depend on Transcendence

Published on December 22, 2005 By stevendedalus In Philosophy

It is perplexing as to why there is this dichotomy between evolution and intelligent design when in reality it is a simple matter of splitting hairs of what is actually observed and what is transcendent. For Darwin deduced from the complexity of evolving life forms an inherent natural selection of intentionality. That is, from a cell there may be underlying it intentionality of inexistent or nebulous other forms which may indeed transcend itself into another material object and become existent. On the lower levels it may appear to be accidental or incidental, yet in actuality there is the implication of a pre-condition intentionality that if such an “accident” occurs, a given transition or some incidental function will arise. If a wolf is in the “making” yet does not contain intentional instincts of a wolf, it is not a wolf but an incompetent mammal that will inevitably fall by the wayside. If early man is equipped with instinct only, he is not ready for manhood and eventually will give way to another intentionality that has modified that instinct to intuition and the first stage of thinking. Thinking, that is, that which intrudes upon common consciousness by questioning and reflecting on intuition — however crude — is what makes one human. The “designer” on the other hand, would prefer the “intrusion” be a divine spark of energy.

The dichotomy, then, springs from the manner in which “design” is perceived. Both views admit to the concept but one, predicated on materialism, is from the perspective of inherent intentionality toward transcendence; hijacked by creationists, the other — predicated on theism, rather than deism — is from the perspective transcending the material matrix to a divine, but active consciousness free of material baggage. The non-religious ID intentionality transcends only to the inner dimension whereby God, demiurge or gods manipulate the natural selection within viewable creation — “God exists in the understanding” [Anselm]. Actual understanding, not a conditional intentionality that there be unicorns.

In other words, natural selection, the demiurge, or God are all transcendent “objects” derived from an intrusive consciousness.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments (Page 3)

bakerstreet

on Dec 28, 2005

"A "self-assembling system" does not have the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent (that's why it is "self-assembling")."

Until you realize that a system is intelligently, not randomly, assembled to undertake specific tasks, and that the fundamental parts themselves are not intelligent and don't decide what they are to do beforehand. True science would be open to all ideas about how such comes to be, and wouldn't offhandedly dismiss explainations for questions that have yet to be answered.

You demand intelligence be brain matter, evidently. You remind me of people who insist that if there is life on other worlds, that it must be carbon based and similar to us to be deemed "life". Sorry, but it might be true that things can be alive in ways we can't fathom, and things can be "intelligent" without a brain.

Intelligence isn't so easy to pin down. You simply can't loosen your grip on the idea that "intelligent design" means some anthropomophic "designer" is in charge. Self-assembling networks CAN react and adjust. Genetic material DOES pass through species like a giant network. You'd have us dismiss such things offhand because some sweaty preacher interprets that as a sign of God?

It's like arguing that the sky is blue with someone who uses the word purple for the color blue... You may define "intelligence" narrowly, but there are many definitions, especially given the hunk of inanimate matter you are using to post this. You are accusing me of promoting something I'm not even discussing.

If you want to define ID according to non-scientists and militant atheists, feel free. I don't even bother to acknowledge either, frankly. They don't get to define it for the rest of us, unless people like you allow them to. Feel free to continue to be outraged by the MSNBC brand of Intelligent Design, while the rest of us decide for ourselves what "intelligent" and "design" means.

Again, I would suggest you look at study outside politics and the church.

Leauki

on Dec 28, 2005

Until you realize that the system is intelligently, not randomly, designed, and that the fundamental parts themselves are not intelligent.

The system is _self-assembling_. There is no designer involved.

If you are talking about a designer at the start, you are not talking about ID as compared to evolution. You are talking about the start of life, which evolution does not explain.

In ID vs evolution, ID is certainly meant to replace evolution as an alternative. And since evolution explains what is going on WHILE animals already exist, and since your example is a self-assembling system, your example does not constitute an example of ID (because "self" is not the same as caused by an external intelligent entity of some kind).

Again, evolution does NOT explain how life started.

If ID is meant to be an alternative explanation, it must explain the system existing, not the system coming into existence.

If you want to define ID according to non-scientists and militant atheists, feel free. I don't even bother to acknowledge either, frankly. They don't get to define it for the rest of us, though. Feel free to continue to be outraged by the MSNBC brand of Intelligent Design, while the rest of us decide for ourselves what "intelligent" and "design" means.

There is no scientist way of defining ID that is in any way different from mine. And I am no atheist.

And if everybody decides for themselves what "intelligent" and "design" means, there is no point in discussing it. It's like your bad analogy above, except that it fits now. If you use the word purple as you wish and blue as well, then nothing you tell about will have the colour it should have.

I also did look at study outside politics and "the church", that is why I read about evolution and don't believe in pseudo-science.

(Although "the church" does not, in fact, advocate ID or cresationism these days.)

BTW the definition of ID I used is the one used by "The Center for Science and Culture". If that is not the same ID that you are talking about, I would be curious as to what exactly you are calling "intelligent design" and why you are not using the same word as other people for it.

Leauki

on Dec 28, 2005

Until you realize that the system is intelligently, not randomly, designed, and that the fundamental parts themselves are not intelligent.

I almost didn't catch the "randomly". I didn't think it would come up again and again. But apparently it is very difficult to get it out of people's minds.

Evolution is not random. There is no "intelligence vs randomness" duality here.

The fact that you use the term makes me think that maybe you didn't know that.

bakerstreet

on Dec 28, 2005

As I said, it is like someone saying "There's no life on Mars" offhand because we don't see people walking around. "Life" to the close-minded means little green men, or at least ants and squirrells. Likewise, "Intelligence" doesn't necessarily mean "brain" or "conciousness", and it MOST CERTAINLY can arise from multiple, separate entities and not a single, bearded man.

A cell in your brain isn't intelligent, but your brain as a whole is considered to be so. A single node in a network isn't intelligent, but a network of nodes can behave intelligently. A single genetic organism outside of drastic mutation is basically "fixed", but genetic communities and ecosystems tend to adapt, and in ways that can't always be explained as "non-intelligent" or simple survival of the genetically predisposed.

Perhaps I'm just ignorant after all these years of reading. Maybe you have better books. If you decide to teach me more about evolution than I learned in college, I'd no doubt be blessed.

bakerstreet

on Dec 28, 2005

The definition you cite from CSC (an organization I'm not thrilled with and who frankly doesn't have any more right than you do decide what the final definition of "intelligent design"):

"1. What is the theory of intelligent design?

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Certain features. I differ with the word "best" because nothing has been explained in concrete fashion on any of the many sides of the debate. You want to narrowly define intelligence. Maybe we'll have to discard the word since people like yourself simply replace it with "God" and call any study of it in terms of evolution "faith".

bakerstreet

on Dec 28, 2005

Leauki:

"I almost didn't catch the "randomly". I didn't think it would come up again and again. But apparently it is very difficult to get it out of people's minds.

Evolution is not random. There is no "intelligence vs randomness" duality here.

The fact that you use the term makes me think that maybe you didn't know that."

...

"Natural Selection: Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

Process that results in adaptation of an organism to its environment by means of selectively reproducing changes in its genotype.

Variations that increase an organism's chances of survival and procreation are preserved and multiplied from generation to generation at the expense of less advantageous variations. As proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs. It may arise from differences in survival, fertility, rate of development, mating success, or any other aspect of the life cycle. Mutation, gene flow, and genetic drift, all of which are random processes, also alter gene abundance. Natural selection moderates the effects of these processes because it multiplies the incidence of beneficial mutations over generations and eliminates harmful ones, since the organisms that carry them leave few or no descendants. See also selection."

In the end, the engine of change is random mutation, gene flow, and genetic drift. Intelligent design simply hypothesizes that such genetic change may not always be random.

If you have some theory as to how new beneficial genetic variance appears without design, and without being random, please feel free to pose it. Until then, there most certainly is a dichotomy here. One side said that the genetic changes that cause preferred characteristics occur randomly. The other hypothesizes that they might occur in a directed fashion in some instances.

Sounds like a genuine difference to me, and not one between smart and stupid people as you would paint it. Natural selection isn't at issue though, and neither frankly is evolution. To me it most certainly a "randomness vs. intelligent design" issue. People just make it "anti-science" to combat it mindlessly.

AndyBaker

on Dec 28, 2005

Jesus became a maggot to show us the way out

Am I to interpret this statement literally, or is it a metaphorical statement?

The answer is YES!! You can take it literally and I'm going to prove it to you. Going back to scripture to get my answer. It's all in there. >BR>

Job: 25:1-6 says: How can man be justified with God? Or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? Behold even to the moon and it shines not, yes the stars are not pure in his sight. How much less man that is a worm? And the Son of Man (Jesus) which is a worm?

This section is Bildad running out of arguments so he does not attempt to prove Job wrong but simply declares that Job is presumptious in thinking he can argue with God.

What's the world coming to?

"Worm": n; "any of various invertebrates, esp. the annelids (earthworms etc.)"

"Maggot": n; "the soft limbless larva of dipterous insects, esp. the housefly and blowfly", (which is indeed similar to worm)

Talking about choosing which Biblical verses we think are figures of speech, and which are literal statements - I think you're having a laugh with that one, KFC. Either way, this is the "fledgling wavelength of fundamentalism" that I talked about on the other thread, and it sums up the Creationist-wavelength to a tee. It’s truly endearing to me. God bless us all

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Dec 28, 2005

Schools should not teach random nonsense or religion.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I happen to believe scripture is not fantasy nor nonsense. Pretty strange comment coming from someone who believes in God I must say.

Evolutionists have had 100% of the time for decades because they can explain and teach

So also can creationists explain and teach and do so in Christian schools. They teach about God...not Darwin and his theory.

ID is NOT a theory

Then what is it? Can you prove ID?

At the very least proponents of creationism or ID should read a few books about evolution. I know they usually don't because I have listened to creationists and ID supporters.

I recommend "The Ancestor's Tale", which I read at the moment.

I have read the Bible, why shouldn't creationists read scientific works?

You've got to be kidding? The only thing the schools push is evolutionary books and views. So how do "we" not read these things? To me Evolution is not only nonsense but a lie to boot.

My son is going for his PH.d in Neuro Science having already graduated with a degree in Molecular Cell Biology and is one of the biggest creation believers I know. This is after going thru the Public School System (government schools) for 13 years pushing the other side at him. He got an 800 (perfect score) on his GRE in math so he's no dummy like many like to paint the Creationists as being.

Basically this whole argument is one religion (evolution) being pitted against the other (creation). And to marry the two together with ID or with Theistic Evolution is just being lukewarm.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Dec 28, 2005

Andy,

All I'm saying is in God's eyes or in the big scope of things....we are just worms or maggots...whichever. We like to think ourselves as big and mighty but in reality we are created beings with no special powers. We cannot save ourselves. Jesus came down to be a lowly man and show us the way. That's all.

So you're right in the sense that we are not literally worms like in the ones in the back yard we dig up.

But we are to take the bible literally as much as we can. "If it makes sense seek no other sense" is the principle I go on.

So if the bible says....it's raining like cats and dogs....no I don't take it literally.....

Nice chatting w/ya tho!!

AndyBaker

on Dec 28, 2005

Nice chatting w/ya tho!!

You too KFC! I think it's an interesting topic to discuss.

Thanks for sharing your views, we'll chat again later, no doubt

stevendedalus

on Dec 29, 2005

The time they spend promoting their own BELIEFS is time they are neglecting their jobs.

An emphatic aye unto an intelligent statement.

I'd much rather see audiences so grounded in science FACT that the Speilbergs of the world can't get by without hiring a science consultant...

Yeah, I didn't care for "War of the Worlds" either.

Dr Guy

on Dec 29, 2005

I'd much rather see audiences so grounded in science FACT that the Speilbergs of the world can't get by without hiring a science consultant...
Yeah, I didn't care for "War of the Worlds" either.

AndyBaker

on Dec 29, 2005

The cleaning has to come from the inside first.

Kinda puts it all in perspective doesn't it?

Good stuff, I like it. No matter how much we strive to keep up our outer, worldly appearances, what really matters is what lies within. In the words of Joseph Benner, "from God's point of view the soul stands forth naked, stripped of all pretence, and has no mask or personality to hide its real nature". The cleansing process indeed has to come from the inside first. Once our soul finds the spiritual riches and healing grace of God's Kingdom, not only is the door opened to better self-acceptance and inner peace, but our outer, worldly appearances and affairs will also prosper and bear fruit. "Seek first the Kingdom of God, and all other things will be added unto you", said the Lord. This is a science all of its own, which has little to do with physical laws, and has nothing to do with how we interpret Genesis chapter 1. At the end of the day, we're down here to undertake soul work, and God knows that it takes pain for spiritual transformation and advancement to occur. Integrity and a sincere faith is priceless, from Heaven's point of view.

stevendedalus

on Dec 30, 2005

This is a science all of its own, which has little to do with physical laws,

Now, don't go overboard. You're back to ID as a spiritual thing.

AndyBaker

on Dec 30, 2005

Now, don't go overboard. You're back to ID as a spiritual thing.

yes, it’s a spiritual thing, and I admit I might have sounded over-zealous. But I’m not saying that it’s a science like ID, which attempts to prove spiritual things via traditional scientific methods, like proving the laws of gravity. It can be proved for oneself on a personal level by applying its principles in daily life and in our spiritual life. (This is where materialists will tune out, however, as we’re talking spiritual matters and walking upon subjective grounds. But hey, as Christianity declares - “God is Spirit”, and the Ground of Being is Spirit – so by definition, everything exists on Subjective Grounds, in context with the Mind of God, the ultimate reality.)

While science focuses primarily on the level of physicality, Christianity focuses on the ‘deeper’ level of spirituality, which eludes scientific weighing or measuring. I think that the Creationists and ID-adherents should refrain from trying to “prove” the Infinite via finite methods like materialistic science. They won't get anywhere. And as Neale Donald Walsch said, "If you don't go within, you go without." I believe that God can be found when we undergo an ‘inner transformation’ of the heart, rather than by appealing to traditional science.

I’ve probably gone overboard again, and it won't cut much mustard, but this is the way I see it.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!