Ape
Out of curiosity--how many of you believe in Intelligent Design, and how many of you believe in any branch of Evolution that doesn't feel the existence of an Intelligence is necessary for life?
posted by Jim at 11:49 PM
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Cult? What?
Links
- recommendations? suggestions?
- post them!
- Syndicate This! (RSS)
Previous Posts
- Freedom
- Lightsaber Duels
- Esperanto, anyone
- Gender who?
- Butler picture #1
- An Impromptu Poem on the Occasion of a Math Test
- Josh Sightings!!!
- Happy B-Day, Michael
- a footnote to history
- The Ocean
7 Comments:
I disagree with your use of the word "believe", but to take your question at face value I'd have to say that it's apalling that that the notion of ID is even taken as a credible theory, much less a plausible explanation for the current state of life. The fact that the theory's only predictions have turned out false (spontaneous generation, and whatnot) and the fact that evolution (in a somewhat post-Darwinian sense) has borne itself out as a testable, malleable, and valid principle makes this entire debate ridiculous.
APOLOGIST!
Good quote (paraphrased) from a horrible book (Sophie's World):
"Life is a lottery in which we only see the winners."
After you realize that, the rationalizations which Luukas cites (I won't do the low-blow of attributing them to Luukas) just seem silly.
In lighter news:
i) I <3 Alex
ii) Speech nat quals are this friday and saturday, so if I win Ben (and any one else who made it) and I must rendezvous for some glittery bursts of Platonic loving. Since Paul's in the area and has qual'd in the past, I fully expect him to be there.
perhaps if you want a philosophically complete accounting, but a scientifically complete account in fact demands that once the effects of evolution can be described in a predictable way the cause isn't worth our time and intellectual energy.
Luukas has just used some very clever tools of the religious intellectual right (oxymoronic, but they exist, and are the main "moderate" ID advocates). They first laud human perfection and natural beauty (as though they wouldn't find any form of existence beautiful--just this particular one). Next, they appeal to our sense of analogy. Recall, CUIIers that Butler talked about this in her essay on Descartes. Analogy of creation is very linguistically and conceptually easy, but analogy doesn't lend any validity to the claims. In fact, it makes them much more unlikely. Lastly, they appeal to very scientific metaphors and reify them in the process. This "concrete-ization" of the abstract not only makes their views undebatable but also gives them access to credible intellectual lineage which they don't deserve.
p.s. Jim probably never saw this coming.
Here’s a thought: Maybe ID versus Evolution can be seen as more of a cultural debate rather than contest of validity. Maybe the idea of evolution is a product (note the capitalist language, here) of the society through which we view things. Ever noticed that the concept of “survival of the fittest” is similar to the economic theory of capitalism? Laissez-faire biology, if you will. I’m not saying that the theory of evolution is invalid, but it is certainly is part of the framework in which it was created. Just as the concept of ID may have come out of religion-based societies. Is one idea more valid than the other? I’m not willing to say. But I do have a new desire to read The Origin of Species and The Wealth of Nations side-by-side.
By the way, I love you, Jim.
a) You're right Mike, I sure as hell did not see this coming.
b) I still hate you too Hannah
c) Bryan's not quite right--creationists are the wacky religious right people (sorry if I offended anyone). Many Intelligent Designists are actually a extremely tiny group of reputable scientists, but are usually influenced by a religious belief. Ex. Behe, Dembski.
d) Luukas's view of evolution is slightly skewed, and is one of the battling points of intelligent designists--evolution actually happens on an extraordinary fast pace--the model of a punctuated equilibrium (changes over a seasonal year that are balanced out by counterchanges with real lasting changes occuring only when the environment shifts drastically) is better suited to current population models. Sex is a tool more to increase the possible genetic variations, which in a time of stringent natural selection will cause evolution to proceed faster.
e) (sorry, I know I lost all of you as an audience already and will not see anymore comments after this one) Most IDers believe not just that God created the laws of evolution, but that the diversity of life we have cannot have evolved out of a single common ancestor--rather, god must have created multiple ancestors that evolved in their own lines, but never, or rarely branched out.
f) I agree with Hannah
g) It appears most taspers believe (yes I'm using believe mike) in evolution
I read in my biology textbook that it was suspected that the origin of organic particles was lighting through swamp gas. Lightning and swamp gas and a billion years of chance. Pretty damn depressing, isn't it?
I guess I find myself in a pretty sticky situation. My ability to see things logically makes me believe absolutely in evolution as the source of life as we know it. However, the results of this process never cease to amaze me. The evolution of eyes that adjust to levels of light, of an intricate internal chemical balance
that keeps us alive, and of the incredible complexity of language all appear to me to be signs of something...I dunno...either divine or extremely lucky.
Furthermore, isn't life pretty depressing if we can't believe in anything greater? It seems like life without the thought of even a semblance of a God would be pointless: a task that not even the greatest philosophers could justify with their almighty logic.
I'm sure we've all struggled with these ideas. And I have seen first hand that the more knowledge is gained, the easier it is to become jaded and (eventually) nihilistic.
However on those nights when we sit pondering or reading over what some scientist or philosopher wrote it is important to remember how limited our capacity to measure and comprehend such an unimaginably vast universe is. Any intelligent design would most likely be beyond our understanding and greater than the scope of our minds. And so it seems impossible to dispel or prove anything conclusive.
I guess my point here is that nothing can be proven and you would be very mistaken to think yourself capable of reaching a decisive conclusion either way.
It is difficult not to be blinded by faith.
But it is equally difficult not to let the limited knowledge you possess close your mind.
Post a Comment
<< Home