Intelligent Design - A Surprisingly Worthwhile Video

[Mal Volio]

I believe in a Creator.

Primarily because I'm terrified of death.

And there, in 11 words, we have the perfect explanation for religion.

Its a human construct, a shield to protect the mind from the difficult questions and from the cold, hard reality of being just another animal in a big, hostile universe. It's a manufactured prop to make us think there really is someone out there who cares and that no matter what, it'll all be all right in the end. A very useful evolutionary trait, I would imagine, something that must have made life more bearable when it was really nasty, short and brutish. Quite ironic.

Marx's opiate of the masses indeed.

[General Congreve]

I believe in a Creator.

Primarily because I'm terrified of death.

Yeah, always makes me laugh when you hear about how church attendances go up for people over 70? Worried about something? However, if we have an all knowing omni-present creator then HE KNOWS you haven't been attending worship most of your life. No amount of last minute cramming is going to get you through the gates now!

Belief for many people is down to a fear of death, a fear of the unknown. Ultimately it's a survival strategy in an uncertain world. The idea of God and afterlife brings comfort to the primitive survival instinct, even though the higher brain knows it doesn't make sense.

The urge to survive is the most base emotion in the animal kingdom (of which we are part), it rules all of our decisions and is constantly in the background of our minds evaluating every decision me make and everything we do. I have many educated friends who claim they are agnostic 'just in case God is real', as if that makes a blind bit of difference to anything.

For many death is an unknown quantity, hence the reassuring fairy tale stories people tell themselves. Personally I don't think it is, it's just like going back to before you were born. Nothing was a problem for me back then and when I die nothing will be a problem then. Even if I die the most gruesome, torturous painful death it is of no ultimate consequence, with what shall I remember this horror when I cease to exist?

Another interesting anecdote that is worth mentioning is: It is often possible to extend the life of a cancer patient near the end of the disease with highly invasive surgery. Despite extending life, this lowers the quality of life of the last few days/weeks of the patients life, so is not recommended. A study recently showed that it is typically the most religious cancer sufferers who demand these life extending, but life quality lowering, treatments. Atheists on the other hand rarely opt for them. This seems at odds with the claims of the religious that they will go to a wonderful afterlife upon death, surely they should be itching to get there?

Basically, religious types are just big jessies who are scared sh1tless by the thought of ceasing to exist. It's no biggy, you won't even know anything about not existing once it happens, so chill and stop wasting so much energy making up stories, enjoy the life you have.

[peepers]

Not true. Whales and Dolphins are species that once crawled out of the sea to live and walk on land and then later returned to the sea, reversing their evolutionary path, at least in some ways.

That's interesting so shows I may have over generalised or used too much conjecture. But could it be argued that returning to the sea was still forward progress for them in their evolution - Were they a more developed animal when they returned to the sea compared to when they left it?

I agree that over time say pigions living on a remote island with no ground predators could perhaps lose the power of flight and the appearance of their wings could change and maybe they would also become larger birds but doubt if they would ever evolve into apes! I suspect they would have had to branch off down a different route at some time in the past to beable to do that - Any real Darwin experts out there who could comment?

[General Congreve]

But could it be argued that returning to the sea was still forward progress for them in their evolution - Were they a more developed animal when they returned to the sea compared to when they left it?

That is probably true to say, in an evolutionary sense they were still going forward, but had just changed direction. If you look at the genomes of higher creatures they are far larger and complex than the single-celled organisms we originated from. Is it possible for the genome to shrink and life to truly reverse? Could evolution literally do a rewind given the right conditions? I don't know. Any experts?

I agree that over time say pigions living on a remote island with no ground predators could perhaps lose the power of flight and the appearance of their wings could change and maybe they would also become larger birds but doubt if they would ever evolve into apes! I suspect they would have had to branch off down a different route at some time in the past to be able to do that - Any real Darwin experts out there who could comment?

I believe I have read that remarkably different species can evolve similar traits over time given similar environmental stimuli. But again, I refer to the experts

[Mal Volio]

Yeah, you get convergent evolution so that quite different animals evolve optimally for the conditions and end up looking not dissimilar.

If you start with a bird, you might eventually end up with something more ape-like in appearance - but birds are more like dinosaurs and they aren't ever going to evolve into exactly the same thing as a chimpanzee, even if the thing they evolved into fitted the same ecological niche. Mammals vs marsupials etc.

[peepers]

'I believe I have read that remarkably different species can evolve similar traits over time given similar environmental stimuli. But again, I refer to the experts'

Aha.... So maybe after hundreds of thousands or even millions of years a group of those ex-pigions could change into some kind of tree-climbing creature looking similar to some species of monkey but would be a unique species related to birds rather than directly to monkeys - fascinating...

[peepers]

Yeah, you get convergent evolution so that quite different animals evolve optimally for the conditions and end up looking not dissimilar.

If you start with a bird, you might eventually end up with something more ape-like in appearance - but birds are more like dinosaurs and they aren't ever going to evolve into exactly the same thing as a chimpanzee, even if the thing they evolved into fitted the same ecological niche. Mammals vs marsupials etc.

Yeah that makes sense.. cheers

[happy_renting]

'I believe I have read that remarkably different species can evolve similar traits over time given similar environmental stimuli. But again, I refer to the experts'

Aha.... So maybe after hundreds of thousands or even millions of years a group of those ex-pigions could change into some kind of tree-climbing creature looking similar to some species of monkey but would be a unique species related to birds rather than directly to monkeys - fascinating...

It is a possibility.

If these hypothetical animals occupied the same environmental niche as monkeys, they would tend to have similar appearance and physiology. This is convergent evolution.

Bats and birds are superficially similar (foreleg adapted into wings) for the same reason, but as they have taken different evolutionary paths there are differences.

In Australia marsupials evolved to fill numerous niches, including the thylacine (marsupial wolf). Although Marsupial and Canine lines diverged millions of years ago, the skull of the thylacine is almost indistinguishable from that of a wolf.

[happy_renting]

Take some grass and a little water. Now from that make a form of self reproducing obedient transport, make a plow engine, make the best material known to man for blankets and clothes, the best material for motorbike trousers and gloves, tasty meat more nutritious than the grass you started with, tasty milk to drink and at the end i want what's left of the grass to be a suitably condensed material for burning so i can make a fire to cook the meat and warm the milk. Yeah cows and sheep. But perhaps we just evolved to find them useful

Trees are quite nice too aren't they. Wood burns quite nicely. Just balanced right to take a light and once it gets going it burns with a gentle flame, not too fast, not to slow. Just right. If you add to the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, it burns too fast for regular use, if you decrease the oxygen it smoulders and smokes. So the wood just happens to be just right for burning in this atmosphere? But some places on the planet are very wet and cold, not easy to burn wood there is it. But we find that the higher the latitude/colder the climate the predominantly birch and pine trees hold a greater proportion of resin. That's handy. Wood is soft enough to cut with the stones we find laying around but strong enough to make houses that last hundreds of years. Useful. There are different woods with different properties useful for different jobs, nice touch. Interestingly trees are more use to us dead than alive

Eventually you have to wonder how lucky we could reasonably expect to be before wondering if some of this is a gift. If you use your common sense and reason anyway.

This is the myth of the anthropological viewpoint. 'I exist so I must be special.'

For every earth there are thousands of planets , by chance slightly different, with no trees and no-one on them wondering about trees.

The 'too perfect to be a coincidence' argument is like arguing that raindrops are clever because they find their way to rivers and back to the sea. Raindrops aren't intelligent, nor is evolution.

[General Congreve]

This is the myth of the anthropological viewpoint. 'I exist so I must be special.'

For every earth there are thousands of planets , by chance slightly different, with no trees and no-one on them wondering about trees.

The 'too perfect to be a coincidence' argument is like arguing that raindrops are clever because they find their way to rivers and back to the sea. Raindrops aren't intelligent, nor is evolution.

And nor is Athom, the OP. Come back and take your medicine you God-fearing coward!

[tomandlu]

The first time I became aware of such a sentiment, it was articulated by Carl Sagan in his Cosmos series. He said (something like): "We are a way for the universe to understand itself."

It's a thought that Babylon 5 series creator, J Michael Straczynski, picked up on during that series. One or other of the B5 characters (from memory, probably G'Kar and/or Delenn) would say something along the same lines. (It seems that JMS may have been a Sagan fan, as this isn't the only Cosmos-ism that appears in B5, including the 'we are made of start stuff' thing.)

The (very good) B5 quote is:

The molecules of your body are the same molecules that make this station and the nebula outside, that burn inside the stars themselves. We are star-stuff. We are the Universe, made manifest, trying to figure itself out.

[athom]

And nor is Athom, the OP. Come back and take your medicine you God-fearing coward!

You're a arrogant ******* aren't you. Now why would you think i was god fearing? A little while ago i was suggesting that what we have might be something of a gift. You must be mixing me up with catholics.

Funny that you think i'm so wrong in believing we shouldn't rule out something you have no way of proving wrong. 2+2=4 i'm open minded and you are not. Pretty simple maths. If you want to box in your imagination by using an inappropriate theory to deny something that it doesn't actually deny that's your loss mate. Have less fun. End of.

[King Stromba]

To put things in context for us, why don't you share some of your other "whacky" scientific theories with us, including the HIV conspiracy & the age of the earth?

No that would take the dicussion off topic. This thread is about alternatives to Darwin's pigeon breeding nonsence.

[UndercoverElephant]

Whenever i hear the phrase Intelligent Design i tend to switch off thinking it's something to do with Creationism� (6000 year old earth loons). But i was persuaded to watch this documentary by a non-Christian PhD biochemist. It turns out what they are describing can genuinely be utterly divorced from religion, sets out no alternative explanation but merely makes the case that more is at work than chance.

In that case it is not a defence of Intelligent Design. It could be the result of some other sort of teleogical process.

[UndercoverElephant]

Evolution is thought to have come about through steps made possible/inevitable by a chance event, what is it you think i don't understand?

If there is anything other than randomness in this universe, laws of physics for instance, a rational person would wonder how that came to be following a random event. Who/what is the lawmaker?

No lawmaker is required:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200.../19/160480.aspx

[Guest anorthosite]

"Intelligent Design" is such a misleading name. How about "half-arsed effort that doesn't work quite well, thrown together at the last minute by a first year student with a deadline"? Seems about right given the quality of the workmanship.

Intelligent design makes god look very, very incompetent

[UndercoverElephant]

"Intelligent Design" is such a misleading name. How about "half-arsed effort that doesn't work quite well, thrown together at the last minute by a first year student with a deadline"? Seems about right given the quality of the workmanship.

Intelligent design makes god look very, very incompetent

The saddest thing about things like young-earth creationism and "intelligent design" is that it is bad theology. You've just highlighted one of the reasons: by claiming that God intelligently designed the cosmos and humanity, God therefore becomes directly responsible for all the problems caused by the "flaws" in that design.

All YECS and IDers should be forced to study Paul Tillich, then they might later realise why they should also study Charles Darwin:

http://www.godweb.org/Tillich.htm

It would he a great victory for Christian apologetics if the words "God" and "existence" were very definitely separated except in the paradox of God becoming manifest under the conditions of existence.... God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him.

The method of arguing through to a conclusion also contradicts the idea of God. Every argument derives conclusions from something that is given about something that is sought. In arguments for the existence of God the world is given and God is sought.... But, if we derive God from the world, he cannot be that which transcends the world infinitely.

[General Congreve]

You're a arrogant ******* aren't you. Now why would you think i was god fearing? A little while ago i was suggesting that what we have might be something of a gift. You must be mixing me up with catholics.

Funny that you think i'm so wrong in believing we shouldn't rule out something you have no way of proving wrong. 2+2=4 i'm open minded and you are not. Pretty simple maths. If you want to box in your imagination by using an inappropriate theory to deny something that it doesn't actually deny that's your loss mate. Have less fun. End of.

Your logic is ars3 about face. There is an infinite list of things that can't be proved wrong.

For example, it's possible fairies are dancing around in the next room to me as I speak, but as soon as I go in they all hide so I don't see them. Don't tell me I'm stupid and there aren't fairies in the next room that hide from humans, cos you can't prove there isn't! HA HA!

So, your argument is basically that you have decided an intelligent creator exists, the evidence for which is the existence of the Universe and perfectly formed humans created by his/her/it's hand. Because there is no way of detecting this creator it follows his supposed existence can't be proved wrong.

Whereas Darwin's theories are testable scientifically, in fact his insights and theories have proved to fit the facts as science has advanced, i.e. the discovery of DNA etc.

Now, for the record please tell me, did you have a religious upbringing of any sort? Were there any religious/creationism supporting adults around you in your formative years?

[Mal Volio]

Now why would you think i was god fearing?

Because you started a thread eulogising a creationist video ?

It's a pretty reasonable conclusion...

What's unfortunate is that you can be god-fearing and still see through that crap. Religion and science don;t have to be in conflict - unless you want them to be.

i'm open minded and you are not.

Ah, clearly

If you want to box in your imagination by using an inappropriate theory to deny something that it doesn't actually deny that's your loss mate.

Mmm. No sense of irony either...

[athom]

Because there is no way of detecting this creator it follows his supposed existence can't be proved wrong.

But that's what i find interesting about the video. Maybe there is a way of proving his/her/it's existence? Shouldn't that be interesting?? Oh how naive of me to not realise it must be rubbish without fully looking at it! Surely there are enough people going against it to know to just follow the herd?

Now, for the record please tell me, did you have a religious upbringing of any sort? Were there any religious/creationism supporting adults around you in your formative years?

You imagine everyone who questions a pure chance existence as falling into a very clearly defined box. The idea of a creator hasn't been ruled out/isn't abhorrent to me. I was pointing out that what they are presenting in the video does seem to be interesting. Whereas your fantasy about fairies (could be Freudian?) is hardly a good analogy as you haven't provided any evidence.

For the record i was brought up an tacit atheist by 2 atheists one ex-catholic one ex-church of scotland whatever that is. I don't ever remember god being mentioned in a negative or positive way or at all. Neither were they followers of any spiritualist, humanist, animalist, paganist, darwinist dogma. I do have a bio-medical degree though and am trained in the scientific method.

I'm guessing you were brought up a catholic and were beaten regularly in the name of god?

[Guest anorthosite]

The saddest thing about things like young-earth creationism and "intelligent design" is that it is bad theology. You've just highlighted one of the reasons: by claiming that God intelligently designed the cosmos and humanity, God therefore becomes directly responsible for all the problems caused by the "flaws" in that design.

If the "intelligent designer" designed your home PC like he designed the human brain, it'd be a huge mainframe with a ZX81 strapped to one side, a Commodore 64 strapped to the other, with a modern motherbroad stuck to the outside secured with gaffa tape.

And the webcam would have a huge design flaw...

[General Congreve]

But that's what i find interesting about the video. Maybe there is a way of proving his/her/it's existence? Shouldn't that be interesting?? Oh how naive of me to not realise it must be rubbish without fully looking at it! Surely there are enough people going against it to know to just follow the herd?

And maybe one day there will be a way of proving invisible fairies exist in the next room. Until the time comes that we have the ability to conclusively prove whether they exist, or that they are just a figment of my over active imagination, I'm sure you'll agree there's a solid chance they are very real. So much so in fact, that we should strongly consider teaching about their existence in science lessons until we have the means to prove/disprove my glorious theory.

You imagine everyone who questions a pure chance existence as falling into a very clearly defined box. The idea of a creator hasn't been ruled out/isn't abhorrent to me. I was pointing out that what they are presenting in the video does seem to be interesting. Whereas your fantasy about fairies (could be Freudian?) is hardly a good analogy as you haven't provided any evidence.

That's right, my theory for fairies isn't back by any evidence. Quid pro quo.

For the record i was brought up an tacit atheist by 2 atheists one ex-catholic one ex-church of scotland whatever that is. I don't ever remember god being mentioned in a negative or positive way or at all. Neither were they followers of any spiritualist, humanist, animalist, paganist, darwinist dogma. I do have a bio-medical degree though and am trained in the scientific method.

As a bio-medical graduate please could you explain how the scientific method works, for my benefit and everyone else on the thread? I feel it will help clarify the debate for us all.

I'm guessing you were brought up a catholic and were beaten regularly in the name of god?

No, technically Church of England (thank you Henry VIII - I can't imagine being born into Catholicism), but my parents are non-practicing. I was left to make my own mind up and not pressured either way by them, in fact discussion was fairly non-existent. Naturally I was exposed to a fair bit of religiosity (Christianity) through school, so I was well informed on the theory of the creation, well the Christian one anyway.

[General Congreve]

If the "intelligent designer" designed your home PC like he designed the human brain, it'd be a huge mainframe with a ZX81 strapped to one side, a Commodore 64 strapped to the other, with a modern motherbroad stuck to the outside secured with gaffa tape.

And the webcam would have a huge design flaw...

Although I have been firmly on the other side of the debate, I have to say that the Commodore 64 is probably the best evidence we have for the existence of God. It brought me true happiness, it was perfect. Until God invented the Amiga 500, that is.

[NotAGuru]

Although I have been firmly on the other side of the debate, I have to say that the Commodore 64 is probably the best evidence we have for the existence of God. It brought me true happiness, it was perfect. Until God invented the Amiga 500, that is.

I was always more of a ZX81 fan. Does that mean my god is called Clive?

[General Congreve]

I was always more of a ZX81 fan. Does that mean my god is called Clive?

No. You have no God. Only the Devil. Sinclair in spawn of Satan!!!