Hi Willblake2, The question Darwinists have yet to answer: "Why does life survive?" Considering that the urge to survive is the basis for their whole theory, along with luck, you would think they would want to address the question. But, like Pirsig said, they just sweep "the whole matter under the carpet." Until Darwinists come to grips with that question, their theory, if not entirely suspect, is, at the least, incomplete. The Darwinist idea that intelligence magically "emerges" from pond scum is yet another example of science's dependence on miracles, otherwise known as the philosophy of "Oops."
Platt On 25 May 2009 at 22:27, markhsmit wrote: > Hi Krimel, > > I have appended the point of discussion below. > > Let me also say that there seems some consensus, in our viewpoints. > I value the impact that scientific thought can have on metaphysical > thought. > They are not separate views as many would seem to think. Concepts in > science can certainly add to metaphysical questions. I am used to dealing > with > scientists, and when I become dismissive of science it is due to the > unwarranted faith that I see friends give to it. But it is powerful indeed. > I actually make a decent living in science, enough to save for kids college, > feed and house the family in a nice setting, and am able to by toys at will > and travel. So far be it for me to bite the hand that feeds me. > > I wanted to touch, once again on this topic of evolution. Not to start a > debate, but simply to put forward my point of view. As you know, > Darwin wrote a thesis entitled "On the Origin of Species > by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured > Races in the Struggle for Life". I will deal with the first part of the > title; > the second is a reiteration. > > We have a description of evolution through a process of selection. > > Let me first say that I have no religion, I do not believe in some guy > in the sky directing all of this. I do respect this belief, and find it > just as valid as mine for getting around in this world. > > I wonder, "what is the nature of this selection process?" How do we > provide a comprehensive evaluation of such a process. I am not > asking why species evolve, but what makes them evolve the way > that they do. I could put forth a number of variables such as limited > food, gravity, weather, the interaction of DNA, etc. How do I put > together all these variables into a System of selection? What process > is carrying out this selection? Does it have a definable and predictable > method? Can we predict the design into the future? > > I am left with the sense of an extremely complex and manipulative > system. Why are there not more species? Why haven't wheels > evolved onto animals. The answer could be: "because they haven't". > But this still leaves me wondering, why not? Would a man with > three arms have an evolutionary advantage? Why do humans > shun abnormal development, if that is what creates evolution? > > If I were to be asked by some space alien, what do you mean by intelligence? > I would list some attributes, manipulation, foresight, intent, purpose, > complexity. > Now manipulation and complexity is present in Natural selection. Are the > other three? Foresight, intent, and purpose. Is there a way to show that > there > is none of these in the selection process? Often we build things that fail, > and try again another way, even with our intelligence. We try one thing after > another guided by failure and intuition. Look to see how other things are > made and learn from that. Does Natural Selection do this? Can we prove > that it doesn't? Trial and error and retrial is a sign of intelligence. > > Now what about foresight. Creating an image and executing it. This is > where design comes in. A desired outcome and a blueprint to achieve > it. Is there any evidence of such a thing in Natural selection? For this > I could think that self-assembly meets selection to form the final pattern. > It is at that meeting that forms are created and last. This is surely design, > perhaps not in a human sense, but in some sense. Is there a plan > in place which is being followed? The invariant nature of the forces, > surely resembles a plan, in the same way a team of engineers > each with there own speciality create an airplane. > > So I am still left wondering what is the difference in attributes between > human intelligence and Natural Selection? Our intelligence is a > result of Natural Selection. Is it mimicking the intelligence which > already exists, just in a new form? > > Just to end up, I still do not believe that evolution is the final answer as > to why we are here. I believe a theory based on change, transformation > may work better than survival. Change is very obviously a part > of this universe, transformation happens all the time. I am working > on this. > > Cheers, > > Willblake2 > > > On May 25, 2009, at 6:45:05 PM, Krimel <[email protected]> wrote: > [Willblakes] > I am not a fan of Intelligent Design, never have been, the site was meant to > direct to alternate views. > Intelligent design and evolution are pretty much the same, anyway. Unless > you would say that > Nature is not intelligent. To do this you would have to include yourself as > you are a product of Nature. > Our perception is simple compared to what is possible. > > [Krimel] > There were a couple of points of agreement there that I didn't want to spoil > by commenting. But here I think you running out of bounds. ID and evolution > aren't the same at all. ID claims that some unspecified other, intentionally > alters or creates life forms. This just leave open the question of who or > what and where the who or what came from. This is Ham's answer and it really > isn't an answer at all. It is just a way of avoiding the question. > > Evolution on the other hand recognizes chance and chaos as the creative > background from which static patterns emerge. The MoQ could get with this > program as well if could at last free itself of the mystico-theistic baggage > some here insist on packaging it with. But no I don't thing Nature is > intelligent rather it is opportunistic and intelligence emerges from the > layering of static patterns churning up in the wake of DQ. In other word > saying that Nature has intelligence growing in it is not the same as saying > Nature is intelligent. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
