Intelligent Design or Accident?

Ref: #51 by mehulkamdar

Absolutely correct. Thanks for the fresh breath of reason. No one can prove non-existence of a phantom. This is a standard and wholly specious ploy often used by fundamentalists, UFO proponents and mystics who count on the ignorance and gullibility of the public.

Here`re a couple of comments I made on September 30, 2005 to ``Intelligent Design versus Natural Selection`` by Dr. Gill:

Dr. Gill says: ``Even after the passage of more than a century, theory of natural selection continues to be hotly debated...``

Not, Dr. Gill, among the biologists that I know. All, myself included, believe evolution through natural selection to have as solid, perhaps an even more solid, foundation as anything in science. However creationists (fundamentalists) have established their own universities that award degrees in science. It`s to be expected that ``biologists`` graduating from these universities would espouse creationism.

And again Dr. Gill says: ``The micro changes that are responsible in creating a random mutant occur over a period of several generations and are not reproducible in the laboratory, at present at least.``

Dr. Gill, how long has it been since you were in a biological laboratory? It`s quite easy, really. Here, as one example among many, is an extract from an article in ``New Scientist.`` I give the URL that will take you to the entire article at the end of my comment.

Evolution in the Laboratory: Up Close and Personal

No longer content with analyzing the fossil record, scientists are returning to the lab in a bid to understand the forces that shape living beings. In these controlled conditions, they can ``create`` evolution for themselves. They can introduce environmental changes to see how species adapt and can watch new species evolve in just a few days.

The following excerpt comes from an article in ``The Observer`` of Sunday, October 2, 2005. Anyone interested should read the entire article at:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1582943,00.html

Sunday October 2, 2005
The Observer

The American Museum of Natural History in New York will open the most far-reaching exhibition in its history on Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, next month. In most countries such a display by one of the world`s top museums would not be the stuff of heated controversy.

But not in America. Not in 2005.

As the rest of the world looks on in amazement at a debate that seemed to have been settled long ago, America is now gripped by a raging battle between evolution and creationism. The museum`s Darwin exhibition will be just the latest battle in the continuing fight.

At the centre of it is the concept of intelligent design, which critics call `creationism lite`. This theory holds that evolution is not a proven fact and nature is so complex that it betrays the existence of `a designer`. Without being explicit there is little doubt the designer is intended to be God.

The exhibition will tackle this theory head on by trying to point out the difference between science and religion. Intelligent design will be explicitly mentioned. `We expect that in some corners the show will be controversial. We are prepared for that,` said Michael Novacek, provost of the museum.

I also suggest that those interested in lucid discussions on evolution (Dr. Gill`s discussion is anything but lucid in my opinion) visit these pages:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18363

http://www.science-spirit.org/patriotledger.htm

http://www.science-spirit.org/archive_cm_detail.php?new_id=84

http://www.science-spirit.org/current.php

Ghalib also said:

Vain is the boast of wisdom, and
The gain of worship is well known

---

Mere dregs in the cup of forgetfulness,
The world of religion.
(from Qasida in praise of Ali)

mirmir

Your contention that biologists do not have any ``concrete proof to show that God does not exist and that God did not create the universe`` is nothing more than a religious attempt at confusing an issue. The onus of providing proof is on those who say that something exists and not on those who are skeptical of it`s existence. Biologists do have evidence of the process of evolution. Fundamentalists have little more than mythology from their scriptures.

In all this noise the fact that religion was a very important force in the evolution of human morals and thought is ignored as fundamentalists use inherently devious theories like Intelligent Design to justify their miserable existence. Moderate religionists have no problem with accepting sientific evidence side by side with following rituals and other religious processes.

Hallo... I just know that there is something greater than us. Recently, a planet 5 times the size of Jupiter was discovered in another galaxy. I don`t think the little spider that shares my bathroom with me has any idea of how large I am at just 5`5`` - nothing compared to Jupiter! Wow, huh?

-zensufi-

PM:

Every new and more generalized theory makes predictions and reveals new information which was beyond the capability of the old theory. For example, Einstein`s theory of relativity provided information, which was not deducible from Newton`s theory. For instance, it came out from Einstein`s theory that speed of light has to be constant for it to work. Energy and mass are essentially the same entity at a very high speed, close to the speed of light. The proof was the atomic bomb. The light rays bend close to a massive body which is symptomatic of the material characteristic of light. There is host of other information which the theory of relativity revealed.

Although it is not known what specific information would be revealed by the unified theory, it would certainly provide great insights into the origin of the universe. Is it multidimensional, more than four dimensional as we know now? Did it start from a big bang (our universe did) or whether numerous other big bangs are occurring every other second as some of the string theorists believe. It might (ought to) explain the nature of the universal constants. What is ``dark mass`` and ``dark energy?`` It might tell us about the ultimate fate of the universe. It is not for nothing that hundreds of the scientists are working on it day and night. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

re. ``If a unified theory (theory that unifies all the four fundamental forces of nature) is developed, it might clarify some of the points of contention.

How so, sir? Pray tell.

re. echoboom #42

``Rumi has already written about that--700 years BEFORE Darwin. He did not write metaphorically either.

If the poetry of Rumi you included is evidence of prescient and pre-science knowldege of evolution, I`m sure I could also sell you the idea that a certain book revealed 1400 years ago attested that life, as every self-respecting scientist nowadays knows, began in the primordial seas.

After all, it does say that ``Verily, .. life sprouts forth from water``, does it not? And this wouldn`t be totally unimaginable a statement for someone living in the desert to make, only on empirical evidence, right?

re. ``Although not many people now believe in the six-day creation story literally, the religionists believe that the theistic God –God of the Bible - exists and he created the universe according to a plan, which is called the intelligent design. Such people are called “theistic evolutionists. The name implies that they consider evolution to be a process initiated and guided by God, presumably in order to bring about the existence of human beings,” (Darwinism: Science or Philosophy, by Phillip E. Johnson, Ch. 4). ``

Indeed. And it`s a totally unnecessary postulation too! You could just as well postulate that this God, in turn was created by Pregod, in order to bring about the existence of God.

``Do they have a positive evidence for their claim? There is no evidence per se apart from the divine revelation; if you do not believe in divine revelation then of course there is no independent proof...The biologists who claim that the human beings are the result of long and gradual evolution by natural selection likewise do not have any concrete proof to show that God does not exist and that God did not create the universe. ``

And neither will the smart ones among them conflate the issues of evolution vs creation and, on he other hand, theism vs athiesm. What they will point out, (though they should have to) is that, at least in the scheme of evolution, God as we know Him/it is really unnecessary.

``They can explain the evolution of man from the primitive form of life which many religionists also are now prone to believe, to some extent, but how did the primitive life itself come into being or how did the universe come into existence, they have no definite answers for these questions.``

And the thing is, they`re happy not having definite answers- having outgrown the childhish, religion-induced, incapability of working with ``glorious`` uncertainity.

[great intellectual setback to the scientists ]

Scientists always have intellectual progress. It is nonscientists who cannot tolerate any revisions think that revisions are incoherrance or whatever. For scientists all theories are provisional.

malik99

{{The ``haves`` over millions of years of having the superior upbringings and having different worries and life styles than ``have nots``, will develop a completely different personality over millions of years. Perhaps their brain size will become double that of ``have nots``.}}

H.G.Wells followed that line of thought more than a century ago. He was outraged by the class inequality he saw around him in late-19th century Britain – a stark divide between a well-heeled class that could afford leisure and a cultivated lifestyle, and a working class slaving in dark satanic mills and factories and living in wretched conditions. The result was a bleak dystopian vision of the future in The Time Machine - the leisured class have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years of cultivation and refinement into a species called the Eloi, feckless and incapable of fending for themselves; while the working class have similarly evolved into a brutish species called Morlocks, who live by preying on and devouring the hapless Eloi. A despairing forecast indeed.

and here is some more food-for-thought: From Ilm-i-ma`aquooli of the ISLAMIC Madrassaas:


``Sufis believe that, expressed in one way, humanity is evolving to a certain destiny. We are all taking part in that evolution. Organs come into being as a result of the need for specific organs (Rumi).


The human being`s organism is producing a new complex of organs in response to such a need. In this age of the transcending of time and space, the complex of organs is concerned with the transcending of time and space. What ordinary people regard as sporadic and occasional bursts of telepathic or prophetic power are seen by the Sufi as nothing less than the first stirrings of these same organs. The difference between all evolution up to date and the present need for evolution is that for the past ten thousand years or so we have been given the possibility of a conscious evolution. So essential is this more rarefied evolution that our future depends upon it.``

Idries Shah. The Sufis

malik:99
Rumi has already written about that--700 years BEFORE Darwin. He did not write metaphorically either.

I hope those who have not come across earlier would appreciate it as well.



Rumi`s story of evolution:


I died as a mineral and became a plant,
I died as plant and rose to animal,
I died as animal and I was Man.
Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?
Yet once more I shall die as Man,
to soar With angels blest;
but even from angelhood I must pass on:
all except God doth perish.
When I have sacrificed my angel-soul,
I shall become what no mind e`er conceived.
Oh, let me not exist! for Non-existence Proclaims in organ tones,
`To Him we shall return`

Translated by A. J. Arberry

hamidm writes ``by this definition the horrible hindoos and the pathetic pakis will be different species in another million years or so ``

Very interesting! It brings up a point in relation to evolution. So far, the theory of evolution has mostly concentrated on the past - that is, how we came to be. However, an equally interesting discussion should be: where is this evolution leading to. In other words, the process of evolution has not stopped. Is it possible that some other species, more intelligent than humans, is in the process of getting evolved - and we just dont know it yet? Also, are humans themselves going to get evolved into different branches?

Perhaps the human divide today of ``haves`` and ``have nots`` will become more profound and permanent in future - giving rise to the evolution of two branches of humanity: the sub-humans and the super-humans.

I recently read a book called ``Guns, Germs and Steel`` by Jared Diamond. In that book he argues that the land mass of ``Eurasia`` evolved to dominate this world because that was the place where the domestic-able animals and crops were first originated (by the pure accident of geography and climate). This was also the place where horses originated, thus giving an advantage to its inhabitants in wars. That advantage grew over thousands of years and to this day it is still the ``Eurasians`` who hold advantage in the world in the ``efficiencies`` of battlefields. All that has happened is that the advantage of horse has now evolved into advantage of other weaponries - air planes, battleships, missiles etc. In pure market terms, its called ``first entrant advantage`` - that is, a company is the first one to enter a market with a new product and then capitalizes on it so much so that subsequent competitors spend their life-time simply trying to catch up.

The point of bringing up that book was that perhaps we humans will get evolved too in various directions based on our ``first entrant`` advantages. The ``haves`` over millions of years of having the superior upbringings and having different worries and life styles than ``have nots``, will develop a completely different personality over millions of years. Perhaps their brain size will become double that of ``have nots``.

The above analysis assumes that the movement of humans from ``have nots`` to ``haves`` or vice versa will slow down to a halt over millions of years.

I know, I could be making an ass out of myself by my above mentioned ramblings. But then, who on chowk doesnt!

… Intelligent design or accident …? I think it is design that makes intelligent use of accidents.

One has to be oblivious of mounting scientific evidence in order to discard the idea of evolution. Doing so on basis of narrow interpretation of scripture revealed to hallucinating men makes it worse. We may as well start believing in men parting ocean by waving their hand.

My own view is closer to “theistic evolution” ... where mechanism of evolution is a part of a greater, intelligent design. More and more ingredients needed for creation and evolution of species may be identified and discovered by scientific methods. Will this provide more answers or pose more questions … remains to be seen. However, what remains a mystery, at least up until now as I have understood, is extremely low likelihood of these ingredients coming together at the right times, in right proportions, in right sequence, for creation and evolution of species … and hence my take on this issue as outlined in the beginning of this post.

shobig-sifar:

The cosmological constant you`re talking about is different. That constant was used by Einstein as a sort of fudge factor to obtain steady state universe from his theory. that constant is important and the scientists are trying to comprehend its true nature. I appreciate your interest in the article.

Mohammad Gill

hamidm #35

sorry my friend, but you make no sense when you say that the definition of species is incorrect. How can a definition of a term be incorrect? It is like saying that the definition of Asia is incorrect and the terms should be used to also include Europe.

You would make more sense if you said that the overall taxonomy scheme itself (of which species is simply one layer) put up by Linnaeus in the 18th century is not valid. However, the fact is that that scheme, despite challenges once in a while, has withstood the test of time albeit with further refinements, new layers of sub-classification and so on. The current revolution in genetics will no doubt in due course provide us with a firmer basis for distinguishing between different life-forms on earth than the knowledge Linnaeus had available to him.

I agree with you when you say we are all family. It is only human arrogance that causes it to emphasize distinctions between humans (racial, religious, caste, ethnic, economic status, worldly power, vip`s vs. masses, whatever) as well as between humans and other creatures. The great-granddaddy of all life on earth was the same single celled microscopic creature that first wiggled around the earth`s oceans 3 billion years ago. Racial distinctions came up a mere 10,000 years ago, and racial distinctions from a scientific perspective are a load of nonsense. There is greater genetic diversity WITHIN the african people, e.g., then any other people on earth.

Does someone who becomes a scientist does so by design or is so by accident?

I think a human-child raised by a monkey in a jungle has a tremendous chance of getting mistaken, by humans, for a monkey.

A monkey`s offspring, raised by humans, can never be mistaken for a human.


Going by the concept of entropy, I think there is a far greater chance of devolution than evolution. We notice this in ``wild`` vs ``cultured`` flora & fauna.

I am firmly convinced that according to the Qur`an the ancestors of present-day monkeys, & their khaloos Phhupaas, were once hamidm2s of their times.