|
Author
|
Topic: Intelligent design theory or the Darwinian theory of evolution: a poor choice.
|
Serge Patlavskiy
Member
Member # 1243
|
posted 25. August 2005 08:59
Remarks concerning Casey Luskin's article "Human Origins and Intelligent Design", ISCID Archive, August 2004
[Casey Luskin] writes: "Wood and Collard found that the most common tests have required that a Homo specimen meet any one of four criteria:
1) Cranial capacity of at least 600 cc indicating higher intelligence
2) Possession of language, as inferred from brain morphology and endocranial casts
3) Well-developed opposable thumb
4) Usage of stone tools
In Wood and Collard's review, criteria 1 and 2 were rejected because language ability and intelligence have been found to not necessarily correlate with brain size. This is probably because internal brain organization is much more complex and important for determining intelligence than is the sole dimension of brain size" (p. 8).
[S.P.] First, let us dwell on the idea of, so called, "higher intelligence". This idea follows directly from the relic anthropocentric views still accepted by the mainstream science. Of course, the anthropocentric views must be expelled from the modern Science, and as soon as possible, since they have nothing to do with the scientific objectivity. But the expulsion of the anthropocentrism (a view that only the human is endowed with reason or, at least, a higher intelligence) is only a half a job. The second half (which would be even harder to do) is the acceptance of the idea that the potential cognitive abilities of all possible bio-objects are equal (exactly such a conclusion follows directly from my informational theory). But we must also clearly realize that the rejection of the anthropocentrism will lead to the rejection of the very Darwinian hypothesis of evolution by natural selection. From this hypothesis directly follows that consciousness is the result of evolution. Figuratively speaking, the forebears were less conscious than their historically remote offsprings. But if to accept that, say, Homo habilis was as "clever" as the modern Homo sapience (he had the same abilities to process and conceptualize information), then what could be the reason for him to evolve biologically into another species? So, the hypothesis of evolution crashes, the very evolution loses its sense, its aim. In my view, every living form was/is expediently evolved to exist, and objectively needed no evolution at all.
Second, I believe that every living object possesses an expedient set of features, including the means of informational exchange with its ambience (language, gestures, anomalous information acquisition, etc.). The idea that the animals are less intelligent because they cannot speak in human language must be sharply blamed as anti-scientific.
Third, the hand (arm) is not the only tool that the bio-object can use. It is known what masterpieces can be made using the beak and claws (I mean here some kinds of the birds' nests).
Fourth, the town crows do not use stones to cleave the nuts. They are not as dull as others to work hard. Therefore they drop the nuts on the street where the moving cars crack the nuts by their wheels.
[Casey Luskin] writes: "Intelligent design theory postulates that humans exist on Earth because of the will, intention and purpose of a designer. This stands in direct contrast to neo-Darwinism, which sees our existence as "a mere accident."" (p. 14).
[S.P.] In my view, both the Intelligent design theory and the Darwinian theory of evolution are the non-scientific theories, because the first one implies the existence of the designer (to wit, God), but the second simply cannot be called a theory - it is merely a scientific hypothesis (albeit without any serious factual basement). I strongly believe that for the hypothesis of evolution to become a theory of evolution, it must be augmented by the theory of consciousness and the theory of the emergence of matter and life. So, we must always talk about the complex of those three theories.
So, the author proposes us to choose between the Intelligent design theory and the Darwinian theory. But the informational theory gives us a third possibility. The case is that any bio-object (and even a biocenosis) can be formalized using the theoretical graphic model of the integrated information system (IIS) - the IIS{bio-object}. According to the Postulate of IIS (see [1]), every integrated information system obeys some universal Law of development. Now then, the development of the bio-object goes not by chance, nor by design - in this process the other natural laws play a crucial role.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy
[1] http://www.geocities.com/spatlavskiy/ElaborNewParadigm.pdf
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 19. September 2005 10:30
Serge,
You propose a new hypothesis for explaining the emergence of complexity in nature. You call it a ¨theory of consciousness¨ and a ¨theory of the emergence of matter and life¨. It seems that you are considering some meta-theory of consciousness that can somehow produce information that would lead to the emergence of say the basic type "homo" from the basic type "Australopithecus" by means of some universal law of development. How could this be distinquished from intelligent design - where information is seen as coming into the physical realm from an external Designer. If you are postulating some metaphysical process that lies still within the fabric of the physical - could you elaborate on how this might produce new genetic material?
-Christopher
IP: Logged
|
|
MinaHanna
Member
Member # 2010
|
posted 03. July 2006 19:00
Hello, im mearly a 14 year old child who had taken intrest in theroies of how life had come to exist, many depend on religion to answer such questions. But it dosen't make sence to me in many ways. How did god come to exist, every life form had come from another and had been created. So I really don't consider myself to be an athiest. Im really lost when it comes to point of views such as this. I found this website to be intresting considering that when I talk to people about this topic they replie with a 'who cares'.
I also had wondered wheather or not the existance of man-kind is nessary for us to know, wouldn't it be more nessary to excell in basic sientific creates to better imporve for the generations to come? Rather then not worry about ourselfs, but for our children? I had talked to my science teacher about this, she said that all religions are based on carma, that i shouldn't question gods existance, that every life form should forget the past and applie the knowledge we know for the upcoming future generations, That even if Chirstianity dosen't exist, that we should still belive in it sence its convenyent to humanity. Im here to see other peoples point of views on this topic.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 04. July 2006 02:55
Dear Minna, some times adults have perhaps for various reasons stopped asking basic important questions - some of it is fear of offending others - and in this sense it is easier to stick on practical issues in the world around us. But your questions are good. If we just consider questions of practicality then really we are being de-humanized, because it is only humans that have this ability to ask deep questions. I think this website is full of people who are not afraid to ask the big questions or of letting others know that they are interested in these questions. I hope others will chip in and help direct you to answers.
If I could just give you my understanding of God's existence. There are really only two possibilities to explain why there is something (i.e. our universe) rather than nothing
(i) the universe is all that has ever existed, all that exists and all that ever will exist [Carl Sagan quote]- i.e. the Being=Universe OR
(ii) that some Being outside the universe has created (or brought into being) the universe.
The problem with (i) is that our present universe doesn't seem to have always existed (or even to have the property of existing forever in the future). There is the Big Bang for example out of which space and time came. Perhaps some friends will say the Big Bang was caused by a mother universe, and that universe had a mother and then that had a mother - back and back to an infinite number of mothers. In reality such an infinite chain of mother universes can never exist. So with (i) deleted we are left only with (ii) - an external (transcendent) Being - that most people call "God". Then there is that age old question "who or what made God" that I remember discussing while at high school! Here you must remind yourself that Some-Thing (Some-Being) has always existed [there was never a Nothing - because Nothing can produce only nothing] - so if (i) doesn't work out - by logical deduction(ii) must be the answer. Even if this seems strange to our human way of thinking (or feeling!) we must follow reason. The reason we ask this question is that with us being human beings we are encapsulated in a world of time - where all things always have beginnings and endings (and causes). We thus find it very difficult to imagine a world where there are no beginnings and endings and where things do not need a cause -but just because we find it hard it doesn't mean it doesn't exist - in fact reason tells us it does exist. Hope this helps. Chris
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 04. July 2006 12:04
quote:
How did god come to exist, every life form had come from another and had been created.
Let's address this first.
1. God did not come to exist, so God is not like the other things which you mention. God has always existed, and is the ground, reason, or cause for the existence of all other things that exist.
2. God is not a life form in the same sense as the other life forms which you mention. God is the source of life. So is a logical error to reason that God had to be created or come from another life form like the the other life forms which you mention.
IP: Logged
|
|
MinaHanna
Member
Member # 2010
|
posted 07. July 2006 14:07
Thank you Chris, I had found your message to be helpfull to me in many ways. I didn't relise that somebeing has always existed. But if so, what would have been the purpose of the 'somebeing'? If it true what is said in the bible, it would be that he loved us... but how would he have loved us without first creating us?
Thus why would he create us to begin with, other religons show the same type of logic, why would Allah bother to make muhhamad become able to read and write? Why would so many people wait for the 'Macia', why would be bother coming down?
I've asked many people this question, they all said faith, but if faith truly exists, why would the faith within chirstianity become so diffrent from thoses who put there faith within another god. Further-more what is faith? Faith may be hope for one man, the hope to press on, or is it something more thats beyond my understanding? The only purpose to live as I see it is to better impove humanity, make sure that it will continue to exist until we find the anwsers to such questions. Have it be within my time, or another, that also will be beyond my conprehention.
IP: Logged
|
|
RyanC
Member
Member # 2013
|
posted 08. July 2006 02:29
Hello my name is Ryan and im 17, and i would like for anyone to explain to me how we came to be. The Darwinian Theory of evolution assumes that every organism evolved from a unicellular organism; however, if this is so what created this unicellular organism? What did this organism evolve from? Many scientists maintain that elements in the atmosphere somehow combined to create amino acids, if im not mistaken. And these amino acids that formed combined together to create replicating protein which in turn created self replicating molecules, the beginning of life. This is where i get confused. The odds of 32 amino acids, the minimum for a replicating protein, combining together randomly is as close to impossible as they come. So could intelligent design possibly have some truth to it after all? How else could the near impossible come true without the aid of a higher force? If someone can giv me a scientific reason please reply.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 08. July 2006 09:25
RyanC: "The Darwinian Theory of evolution assumes that every organism evolved from a unicellular organism;"
Darwin's original theory has been supplanted and extended by over a century of new evidence. However, the modern Theory of Evolution explains the evolution of life from a common ancestral population.
RyanC: "... however, if this is so what created this unicellular organism?"
There is no complete theory of abiogenesis, the origin of life. Abiogenesis is not a component of the Theory of Evolution, or Germ Theory for that matter. The first life form on Earth may have been a lucky accident, a natural property of carbon and liquid water, a unique circumstance, seeded by comets, or even a Divine Miracle. The Theory of Evolution concerns the diversification of life, not its origin. However, it is known that life did not always exist on Earth, but that once it began, it diversified into a variety of forms.
RyanC: "The odds of 32 amino acids, the minimum for a replicating protein, combining together randomly is as close to impossible as they come."
Generally, scientists do not propose such a model, but believe that much simpler systems may be able to exhibit some degree of replicative fidelity and selection. This may involve auto-catalytic *sets* of enzymes or a very simple molecular replicator not yet identified.
What is known is that life is an electro-chemical process, that complex organic molecules can spontaneously organize themselves, and that life evolves and diversifies in response to its environment. The general hypothesis is that chemicals can form primitive replicators in the primordial environment. There is some evidence for this, including the recently confirmed prediction of self-replicating and evolving molecules.
Cech and Altman shared the Nobel Prize in chemistry for their discovery of auto-catalytic molecules.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 08. July 2006 09:36
Hi RyanC,
RyanC: "So could intelligent design possibly have some truth to it after all? How else could the near impossible come true without the aid of a higher force? If someone can giv me a scientific reason please reply."
If your Faith depends on the vagaries of scientific understanding, it is on very tenuous ground. Once upon a time, people thought the Earth was the center of God's physical Creation and that God looked down from "Heaven Above". And many tied their Faith to this faulty view of the physical universe. It made for bad religion and bad science.
[ 08. July 2006, 10:14: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 09. July 2006 15:43
Mina and RyanC,
Welcome to brainstorms.
Mina wrote:
quote:
I also had wondered wheather or not the existance of man-kind is nessary for us to know, wouldn't it be more nessary to excell in basic sientific creates to better imporve for the generations to come? Rather then not worry about ourselfs, but for our children? I had talked to my science teacher about this, she said that all religions are based on carma, that i shouldn't question gods existance, that every life form should forget the past and applie the knowledge we know for the upcoming future generations, That even if Chirstianity dosen't exist, that we should still belive in it sence its convenyent to humanity.
Improve things for our descendants for what purpose? The 2nd law of thermodynamics ensures the end of all life at some point in the future.
I can assure you that Christianity is not based on karma and there is nothing convenient about being a Christian.
Mina wrote:
quote:
But if so, what would have been the purpose of the 'somebeing'? If it true what is said in the bible, it would be that he loved us... but how would he have loved us without first creating us?
Thus why would he create us to begin with...
The God of the Bible is all knowing and He is not a creature of time. He is everywhere always present and all mighty (is able to do anything).
God is not limited by our faith in Him. He is who He is; like it or not.
Our purpose is to love and worship God. We are also to love one another, as He loved us we must also love one another.
We have no power to improve humanity for eternity. Christians have a commission. That is to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ to anyone who will listen. Will you listen should I share it with you?
RyanC wrote:
quote:
i would like for anyone to explain to me how we came to be.
We came to be by the miracle of special creation. While this act can’t be demonstrated and no conclusive empirical scientific evidence has yet been provided, the proposition of a miracle breaks no laws of physics if we allow the universe to be an open system. God existing outside the universe could act on it with forces unrecognizable to the inhabitants of the system.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 09. July 2006 16:13
Zachriel wrote:
quote:
Once upon a time, people thought the Earth was the center of God's physical Creation and that God looked down from "Heaven Above". And many tied their Faith to this faulty view of the physical universe.
There are no fixed points in space. Any point selected as the center is arbitrary. Biblical account is accurate relative to the earth. The sun centered model is preferred only because the math is less formidable not because it is a better picture of reality.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
MinaHanna
Member
Member # 2010
|
posted 09. July 2006 20:39
Thank you, Melvin H. Fox.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 09. July 2006 21:59
Melvin H. Fox: "There are no fixed points in space. Any point selected as the center is arbitrary."
Hence, the Earth is not the physical center of the Universe as was once thought, and as was once considered theologically important.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic