Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belindi]

Natural selection does not require final cause.

Artificial selection requires final cause.

[Sculptor1]

LOL.

Stephen Hawking rarely commented on evolution, and if he did, he would never had made the mistake of saying it was intelligence.
In fact evolution is everything that intelligence is not.
Natural Selection is a completely unconscious, unintentional process.

Good point about the seemingly unconscious natural selection... and yet, we have evilved to become more adapted to our environments.

Yes, but in a sense we have become more adapted BY or FROM our environments, since variations that were not fit enough to produce viable progeny did not persist.
To say "to" might be taken to imply "towards".

[Newme]

Good point about the seemingly unconscious natural selection... and yet, we have evilved to become more adapted to our environments.

Yes, but in a sense we have become more adapted BY or FROM our environments, since variations that were not fit enough to produce viable progeny did not persist.
To say "to" might be taken to imply "towards".

Intelligent Design suggests a design that has inherent ability to adapt to change - to evolve - to become better suited to surroundings. This type of design is not overnight but over the long haul.

[Sculptor1]

Yes, but in a sense we have become more adapted BY or FROM our environments, since variations that were not fit enough to produce viable progeny did not persist.
To say "to" might be taken to imply "towards".

Intelligent Design suggests a design that has inherent ability to adapt to change - to evolve - to become better suited to surroundings. This type of design is not overnight but over the long haul.

Rubbish.
ID is false for the simple reason that ALL evolution looks exactly like NATURAL selection and NOT ID which would not act over the long haul.
If ID were true, the design could respond intelligently in the immediately following generation. Evolution is not at all like that.

[Newme]

Intelligent Design suggests a design that has inherent ability to adapt to change - to evolve - to become better suited to surroundings. This type of design is not overnight but over the long haul.

Rubbish.
ID is false for the simple reason that ALL evolution looks exactly like NATURAL selection and NOT ID which would not act over the long haul.
If ID were true, the design could respond intelligently in the immediately following generation. Evolution is not at all like that.

Just because I took a while to respond doesn’t mean my response is not intelligent. I know you didn’t suggest that, I’m just making a point.

[Sculptor1]

Rubbish.
ID is false for the simple reason that ALL evolution looks exactly like NATURAL selection and NOT ID which would not act over the long haul.
If ID were true, the design could respond intelligently in the immediately following generation. Evolution is not at all like that.

Just because I took a while to respond doesn’t mean my response is not intelligent. I know you didn’t suggest that, I’m just making a point.

Not sure your point makes any sense.
Are you no longer promoting ID as a possible element of evolution?

[Belindi]

Newme wrote:

Intelligent Design suggests a design that has inherent ability to adapt to change - to evolve - to become better suited to surroundings. This type of design is not overnight but over the long haul.

'Intelligent design' is a teleological theory. The design inheres in the putative designer but not in the design.

If the designer set up the design and subsequently moved away letting the design take its independent course then we have, not a teleological theory, but mythologised atheism.

[Newme]

Just because I took a while to respond doesn’t mean my response is not intelligent. I know you didn’t suggest that, I’m just making a point.

Not sure your point makes any sense.
Are you no longer promoting ID as a possible element of evolution?

No, I was still stating that, but pointing out that intelligent design evolves gradually - over time. It’s as if nature is a habit and intelligence adapts in new and better ways.

[Newme]

Newme wrote:

Intelligent Design suggests a design that has inherent ability to adapt to change - to evolve - to become better suited to surroundings. This type of design is not overnight but over the long haul.

'Intelligent design' is a teleological theory. The design inheres in the putative designer but not in the design.

If the designer set up the design and subsequently moved away letting the design take its independent course then we have, not a teleological theory, but mythologised atheism.

When referring to intelligent evolution, I’m not suggesting a grandpa in the sky, but rather an intelligence inherent in all, that works in incredibly perfect ways to adapt in the most ideal ways possible over time.

Eg: https://youtu.be/kkGeOWYOFoA

[Sculptor1]

Not sure your point makes any sense.
Are you no longer promoting ID as a possible element of evolution?

No, I was still stating that, but pointing out that intelligent design evolves gradually - over time. It’s as if nature is a habit and intelligence adapts in new and better ways.

That's the dumbest prevarication I've heard in a long while.

Where is the AI? What generates it? What sustains it? What mechanism does it use? How is it evolving?
You are being ridiculous.

[Belindi]

Newme wrote:

When referring to intelligent evolution, I’m not suggesting a grandpa in the sky, but rather an intelligence inherent in all, that works in incredibly perfect ways to adapt in the most ideal ways possible over time.

The clue to your argument's teleological base is your phrase "the most ideal". A sovereign order of being is a theistic order of being. True, any one of us may choose a preferred ontology and argue for its truth. I myself understand and wish for "most ideal way" but I am not such a glad-eyed optimist to believe what I wish to believe.

I ought to relate my objection to the title of this discussion. If you Newme or anyone else were able to persuade me "the most ideal" is indisputable fact the iconic banner of truth and goodness would no longer be freely dynamic but would be affixed to some political ideology.

[Newme]

Newme wrote:

When referring to intelligent evolution, I’m not suggesting a grandpa in the sky, but rather an intelligence inherent in all, that works in incredibly perfect ways to adapt in the most ideal ways possible over time.

The clue to your argument's teleological base is your phrase "the most ideal". A sovereign order of being is a theistic order of being. True, any one of us may choose a preferred ontology and argue for its truth. I myself understand and wish for "most ideal way" but I am not such a glad-eyed optimist to believe what I wish to believe.

I ought to relate my objection to the title of this discussion. If you Newme or anyone else were able to persuade me "the most ideal" is indisputable fact the iconic banner of truth and goodness would no longer be freely dynamic but would be affixed to some political ideology.

First off, Belindi, I appreciate many of your mature responses. It’s refreshing to discuss in a way that is more open to discovery rather than clinging in defense of beliefs. You have brought up some things that motivated me to learn more. Thanks. If I misunderstand your meaning, I trust you’ll let me know.

Theology has nothing to do with the order of the universe, except some scriptures may allude to it.

When I suggested nature follows the most ideal way, I am not suggesting a political or religious ideal, but rather an ideal that accomplishes the goal of survival and thriving with the least effort. Ideal as in maximizing potential.

That’s ^ nature - Intelligent Design - which exists and evolves whether we believe in it or not. God, as I understand God, involves 2 other, more subjective aspects: Spirit (motivation/e-motion) and will to act. These other 2 aspects can be summarized in a couple scriptures: “the kingdom of God is within you” and “God is love.”

Those are loaded ideas! Within you is... a lot! Love, imo, is an awareness of current circumstances and possibilities and choosing what would be most beneficial - which can translate to infinite different expressions of love.

Can you believe in a God defined as Intelligent Design, your psyche (how you perosnally experience everything) and love?

[Felix]

Newme: When referring to intelligent evolution, I’m not suggesting a grandpa in the sky, but rather an intelligence inherent in all, that works in incredibly perfect ways to adapt in the most ideal ways possible over time.

Well, science would say it is only "ideal" for survival rather than for the expression of higher ideals such as beauty or love. Some of the most frightful creatures have been around the longest. But then science does not believe in purpose....

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving that Nature is purposeless would constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred N. Whitehead

[Belindi]

Newme wrote:

Theology has nothing to do with the order of the universe, except some scriptures may allude to it.

Theology is all about the order of the universe. A main component of theology is ontology.

When I say nature I don't refer to the material world alone . I refer to all material, sentient, and mental aspects of being.There is nothing that is not nature. If there be " order of the universe" that order is god. The god may be either panentheistic or theistic.If panentheistic the god is unwitting and unintentioned: if theistic the god is witting and intentioned.

[Felix]

Belindi: The god may be either panentheistic or theistic. If panentheistic the god is unwitting and unintentioned: if theistic the god is witting and intentioned.

I would question whether you can call a system "unintentional" that is constructed to operate in a particular way - I'm thinking of the anthropic principle of cosmology.