Intelligent Design
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 17:04
VIEWED: 14833
PAGE 1 of 14
I tried to find the previous thread that, in part, discussed evolution, but didn't have any luck.
I was playing a computer game where the player attempts to create patterns, while the computer counters with random moves that sometimes help but most often block the player.
And that led me to thinking that, over time, randomness is a pervasive, persistent, and ultimately dominant trend (otherwise known as entropy).
So an intelligent design created some time in the past and then left alone can't help but degrade into disorder.
OTOH, if there is a process that depends on random changes and propagates the most stable ones, it is in the long term driven by that random change. That makes it a likely piece of the concept of how did life end up this way.
Comments?
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The problem that religious folk have with evolution (aside from the fact that it's not spelled out in the bible) is the problem that you pointed out:
Quote:They have a housekeeper view of the universe: If someone isn't constantly cleaning up and organizing then eventually everything goes to hell. But there are, apparently, self-organizing forces in the universe as well as disorganizing forces and evolution is one of them. The concept of evolution as a primary organizing force has certainly been proven by computer models, where bits of self-replicating programs (with little deviations thrown in at random) compete for memory space and computng power. Inital conditions (like the "primordial soup") create the entire gamut of primary producers, predators, parasites and symbiots. Seems like a field ripe for philosphers much more intelligent than myself.
randomness is a pervasive, persistent, and ultimately dominant trend (otherwise known as entropy).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Randomness pokes the status quo in the ribs saying, "whatcha gonna do now?". Constructive force adapts to become the new. Destructive force limits the life span of the new, forcing randomness to repeat it's question.
Every atom is recycled. No new energy is ever created, only changed in form, or use. And change is the essential nature of all existence.
This is why I like Buddism.
An answer to every question isn't necessary, but you should always ask them Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The arguments for ID are compelling for many, but, if anything, the evidence points to "Stupid Design".
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
lol, that's funny.
But intelligence is something we are trying to apply here to a force or phenomenon that is probably not defined by or limited to such.
Like trying to see the nose on a chicken, so to speak.
All mystical and what-not Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Like trying to see the nose on a chicken, so to speak.
Is this something that's caused problems for you in the past?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Aren't we the little smart-ass demon?
Tacky Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The arguments for ID are compelling for many, but, if anything, the evidence points to "Stupid Design".
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
Detractors and proponents of I.D. alike tend to make the assumption that the design is somehow complete or that human beings are the "end result." To me that's kind of like criticizing molten bronze bubbling in the crucible because it doesn't look like the Pieta. Work in progress, folks. Any artist will tell you, the creative process is messy and there are a lot of false starts and dead ends on the way to completion.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Im still wondering how randomness can create a bacteria who moves around with a hair spining around.
That hair on a bacteria requires several different systems to work in harmony for it to do the purpose wich has made the bacteria so succesfull.
I still have trouble that that very specific system has come to be due to randomness alone.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CHRISISALL:
Was not intelligence a force that compelled you to write? Or at least made it possible to comprehend and respond? Is it not like the difference of potential across the terminals of a battery? One seeks the others potential so the electrons may complete a circuit and allow the flow to realize itself?
Well okay. How about this = the beginning of all things is the absence of them. There could be no number line without (0) zero. The moment there is (1) one of anything, there is a potential for it to NOT be. Basic observation proves this one quite simply. There would be no math without ‘nothing.’ So, in the ‘real’ beginning there was nothing. Right? And then something had to instigate the ‘first’ anything. You can’t use Big Bang here people, because BB says there was a singularity (still something at least 1). It was composed of four basic things. All the matter collapses into this singular thing and then bang. But where did all the stuff come from in the first place? Did it make itself? Did you make yourself? A subatomic particle has a particular vector and velocity. These cannot be known until measured, right? So then when they are measured they are proven to have a particular course and speed. Take a wave-guide that has one injection site and two paths. The observed path is always where the particle emerges. Is this random? Perhaps random is just a cop-out way of saying we have no method to predict the outcome – yet. Maybe there is no random after all? Can you imagine life where all things were know? That would be really boring wouldn’t it? I cannot subtract 1 from 1 unless it is possible for 0 to exist. All things observed cannot exist unless they cannot, and at one time did not. Conservation of energy works now, because the energy exists. That is to say, the universe exists energetically on all layers, mass, time, speed, etc. But where did the energy come from in the first place? There is no such thing as garbage, becuase there is no way to discard anything in the universe. It just changes form. So the real answer to the question is, find a way to get completely rid of the universe, and then you will know if it were random or not.
Atomkey...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME