Comments on: Talk About Intelligent Design

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:45:36 +0000

I feel, like darwin, that this is largely a linguistic argument rather than anything of substance. Your view is that evolution guides design. My view is that evolution is the process of trial and error, and that the designer is the environmental and other external influences on a particular organism or population. Evolution does not guide anything, it is simply the name we give to this process of selection and generational change. It is the surrounding environment and other organisms that direct evolution.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:19:30 +0000

Intelligent design is the only theory that makes sense. Evolution doesn’t exist.
-anonymous

By: steve

steve — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 04:14:31 +0000

Are you kidding?

On the whole, Intelligent design has no merit as a scientific theory.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 02:29:25 +0000

Since you bring it up…. It’s time for a summary judgment.

Intelligent Design has merit as a “scientific theory.”

Yes or no, summary judgment guy.

By: darwin

darwin — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:37:39 +0000

I’m pretty sure you can’t use the term ‘intentionally’ without invoking a real, non-metaphorical entity which consciously experiences that intent. I take your point that the end results of evolution are systematic, but by the way you’re using the word ‘intentionally’, it seems like you would also say that rain clouds ‘intend’ to water my garden or that forest fires ‘intend’ to clear the way for new undergrowth. yes these are the natural and systematic outcomes of comlpex naturalistic systems, and yes our anthropocentric world-view makes it easier to understand some complex systems in animistic terms, but I still feel that using terms like ‘intentionality’ is an imprecise and problematic way of talking about these concepts.

By: steve

steve — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:24:02 +0000

You can look at this process at two different points. You can look at on the front end, when mutations occurs which leads to variation, or you can look at on the back end when those variations are tested.

You want to emphasize the front end, I want to emphasize the back end. Since I’m simply attempting to show that evolution shares with intelligent design intentionality as explanation, I think its perfectly valid for me to use the back end of theory to show that relationship.

Randomness may dictate variability, and ultimately take away the argument that evolution intends to design creatures a certain way. However, evolution most certainly has intentional impact on design even if its not direct. It sets the threshold for what designs can and can’t pass. To argue that intentionality is not being brought to bear on this filtering process seems silly.

It’s a bit like a graduate committee deciding to increase the minimal quant GRE score and then saying they do not intend to bring in students with higher gre scores.

Evolution sets the threshold for survival which certainly implies intentionally to allow only those design which meet is criteria for survival.

By: darwin

darwin — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:05:23 +0000

Well, the point of my post was that the word ‘design’ describes the process more innacurately than the word ’selection’. I’d think that you either have to present an argument for why that’s not true, or acknowledge that you’re intentionally being imprecise with your language.

By: steve

steve — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:42:34 +0000

So thats not a valid response to what you wrote?

By: darwin

darwin — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:28:08 +0000

Glad to see you’re staying true to your search for the interesting part of the question. Let me know if you find anything.

By: steve

steve — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:56:11 +0000

Evolution designs things to survive.