Undesigned, designed, unintelligent design & intelligent design

[Cougar]

Evolutionary theory says that evolution is random....

I'd be careful with this. Genetic changes may result from random processes, but 'evolution' then definitely selects on the basis of fitness.

Further, those initial "random processes" may not be all that random after all, if Stuart Kaufman's ideas are correct:

"...the emerging sciences of complexity begin to suggest that the order is not all accidental, that vast veins of spontaneous order lie at hand. Laws of complexity spontaneously generate much of the order of the natural world. It is only then that [natural] selection comes into play, further molding and refining. Such veins... have not been entirely unknown, yet they are just beginning to emerge as powerful new clues to the origins and evolution of life." [Stuart Kauffman, At Home In The Universe]

[Hernalt]

never mind, point covered

[Noclevername]

There's two types of people in this world - those who think Australopithecus had a soul, and those who don't. It is high time the appointed moral authorities illuminate this matter. (And does the Geico caveman have at least 15% of a soul?)

If by "soul" you mean the ability to dance to funk or R&B music, then Australopithecus probably did not have the proper muscular-skeletal structure and coordination to do so. The Geico cavemen, now they definitely have soul.

[kamaz]

It's a wasteful method, simulating randomness like that.

But does this observation lead to any falsifiable prediction? It doesn't(*). And that (to me) seems to be the point all along. So your (valid) objection can be handwaved by saying
The lord moves In mysterious ways.

(*) Actually it sort of does. If one observed that certain processes do not follow probability distributions they should, and ruled out natural explanations, then one could conclude that the Creator is actively messing with our world. On the other hand, if one doesn't observe any statistical anomalies, one cannot use that fact to disprove Creator's existence, as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Noclevername]

...I'm one step away from saying something I shouldn't here about cheating at dice and then hiding it, so I'll stop before I name any Names.

[Inclusa]

The practical term for the "fittest" is "the most adaptable".
Rabbits are so much weaker than tigers, but they are so adaptable that they can be ubiquitous and become "pests".
I guess tigers have never been abundant; in spite of their strength, they are not as adaptable as the rabbits.
Let's think of cockroaches, ants, dandelions, clovers, etc, etc, etc.

[Gillianren]

Predators are always less numerous than prey. They have to be.

[HenrikOlsen]

The practical term for the "fittest" is "the most adaptable".
Rabbits are so much weaker than tigers, but they are so adaptable that they can be ubiquitous and become "pests".
I guess tigers have never been abundant; in spite of their strength, they are not as adaptable as the rabbits.
Let's think of cockroaches, ants, dandelions, clovers, etc, etc, etc.

The thing is that evolution isn't a competition between tigers and rabbits, it's a competition between rabbits and all the other rabbits, and between tigers and the other tigers.
Spencer really didn't do evolution any favors when he coined the "fittest" phrase, it really misrepresents things in a subtly wrong way and makes laypeople think they understand what's going on while they're really not.

[KABOOM]

An RCC priest once described the following view to me that is somewhat different than the cited remarks from the Vatican (and certainly the ID-ers):

This is a paraphrase:

The almighty spiritual force was involved in the creation of the universe. Sceince, evolution, etc have operated on the universe since its inception and it is these sceintific laws/interactions that have formed the Earth, given rise to life and the resultant evolution of modern homo sapiens. It is only upon this attainment of man with an operative "soul" (~ consciousness) that the almighty spiritual force manifests itself in the plight of mankind with respect to its "soul". So all other species of animal life that live/die based upon instinct alone are left outside of the purview of the almighty spiritual force.

What I liked about this interpretation is that it appears (at least to me) to create a peaceful co-existance between sceince and spirituality. Intelligent life with a consciousness arises (a "soul") in the universe and then, and only then, does spirituality/religion enter the picture as a possibility but in a way that removes itself from sceintific testing. Often wondered why the Vatican, etc don't simply take this view or something close to it and back off from injecting itself in various phases of the sceintific process.

[Cougar]

It is only upon this attainment of man with an operative "soul" (~ consciousness) that the almighty spiritual force manifests itself in the plight of mankind with respect to its "soul".

That's pretty anthropocentric. Other animals are certainly conscious. Humans are definitely special and remarkable, but also definitely animals. It seems this idea of a human "soul" was only conceived to separate humans from the other animals. "Soul" is a poorly defined concept that has no empirical basis, unless, as noclevername says, if by "soul" you mean the ability to dance to funk or R&B music.

[Cougar]

It is only upon this attainment of man with an operative "soul" (~ consciousness) that the almighty spiritual force manifests itself....

This implies that the entire history of the universe - 13.75 billion years of cosmic evolution - occurred for the specific purpose of finally generating humans? Humans are special, but I don't think they're quite that special.

[Noclevername]

This implies that the entire history of the universe - 13.75 billion years of cosmic evolution - occurred for the specific purpose of finally generating humans? Humans are special, but I don't think they're quite that special.

By "man" he didn't specify Earth man. Maybe the really important stuff is happpening halfway across the Universe, and we're an afterthought-- possibly one of many.

[Cougar]

Spencer really didn't do evolution any favors when he coined the "fittest" phrase....

Sort of like Hoyle not doing cosmology any favors with "the big bang"?

[wd40]

Is the Anthropic Principle wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

This implies that the entire history of the universe - 13.75 billion years of cosmic evolution - occurred for the specific purpose of finally generating humans? Humans are special, but I don't think they're quite that special.

[Noclevername]

Is the Anthropic Principle wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

The Anthropic Principle is philosophy, not science. It's neither falsifiable nor provable.

[KABOOM]

This implies that the entire history of the universe - 13.75 billion years of cosmic evolution - occurred for the specific purpose of finally generating humans? Humans are special, but I don't think they're quite that special.

No that wasn't the point. It was as another poster speculated in that there may well be and have been "intelligent life with a soul and consciousness" (whateve that really means, but smart animals, like homo sapiens, who can reflect upon their short and long term actions, consequences, fate, future, past, etc) -- sentient beings -- and it is upon such beings, of which we are at least one, that the higher spiritual power manifests itself and provides direction/guidance/relevance.

[wd40]

How can it be that Random Evolution and the Copernican Principle are considered science, falsifiable and provable, but their exact opposites, Intelligent Design and the Anthropic Principle are considered not science, not falsifiable and not provable?

Should they not be all either falsifiable, or all not falsifiable?

The Anthropic Principle is philosophy, not science. It's neither falsifiable nor provable.

[Noclevername]

How can it be that Random Evolution and the Copernican Principle are considered science and falsifiable, but their exact opposites, Intelligent Design and the Anthropic Principle are considered not science and not falsifiable?

Should they not be all either falsifiable, or all not falsifiable?

The Copernican principle is kind of falling apart now that we're finding so many varied planetary systems. And as quoted above, evolution itself isn't entirely random-- only the demonstrable mutations that drive evolution. Evolution itself is an example of Chaos Theory in action-- some order, some randomness, forming variable patterns.

[Strange]

How can it be that Random Evolution and the Copernican Principle are considered science, falsifiable and provable, but their exact opposites, Intelligent Design and the Anthropic Principle are considered not science, not falsifiable and not provable?

It is not "random" evolution; it is evolution by natural selection. Anything but random.

The exact opposite of evolution is not "intelligent design" (except in the limited sense that one is science and one is fiction).

Should they not be all either falsifiable, or all not falsifiable?

The simple reason is that one is based on evidence (applying the scientific method, and all that) and the other is based on guesswork and hope.

Find some evidence that proves evolution doesn't happen (tricky, as we see it all around us) and it is falsified.

Find some evidence that falsifies ID (trivially easy) and they either ignore it, misinterpret it, or say "ah, but ..." and make an exception to allow it - quite literally deus ex machina.

As for the Copernican and anthropic principles, as far as I know they both count as philosophy; like Occam's Razor they seem like a good basis for judging ideas. I'm not sure either could be proved or falsified. Well, perhaps if we found the Edge of the Universe and we were at the center of it...

[HenrikOlsen]

How can it be that Random Evolution and the Copernican Principle are considered science, falsifiable and provable, but their exact opposites, Intelligent Design and the Anthropic Principle are considered not science, not falsifiable and not provable?

Should they not be all either falsifiable, or all not falsifiable?

The opposite of Random Evolution isn't Intelligent Design.
The opposite of Random Evolution is Selection Driven (Darwinian) Evolution, Random has been falsified repeatedly.

Let's be clear here, Intelligent Design is Fundamentalist Christian Creationism with the names changed and the serial numbers filed off so it doesn't ring the church/state separation bells loud enough to get summarily thrown out of classrooms. It has nothing whatsoever to do with science, since the main unalterable core of the belief is that "someone, who was clever enough to hide all evidence that he did so, did it".

[Swift]

Let's be clear here, Intelligent Design is Fundamentalist Christian Creationism with the names changed and the serial numbers filed off so it doesn't ring the church/state separation bells quite loud enough to get thrown out.

[slang]

How can it be that Random Evolution and the Copernican Principle are considered science, falsifiable and provable, but their exact opposites, Intelligent Design and the Anthropic Principle are considered not science, not falsifiable and not provable?

What is "Random Evolution"? Evolution is a fact. The scientific theory of evolution explains how it works, and makes falsifiable predictions.

Intelligent design is ... well, what is it? There isn't even agreement on what it actually is. Henrik put it one way, another way is that it's just a collection of claims that supposedly show that evolution must be wrong. Claims that have never stood up to scientific scrutiny, and that are remarkably similar in nature to the claims of moonlanding deniers.

The Copernican principle is kind of falling apart now that we're finding so many varied planetary systems.

Huh? How does that work?

[Gillianren]

Let's be clear here, Intelligent Design is Fundamentalist Christian Creationism with the names changed and the serial numbers filed off so it doesn't ring the church/state separation bells loud enough to get summarily thrown out of classrooms.

Not that it worked.

[Noclevername]

Huh? How does that work?

The Copernican Principle basically says that we're typical. We're finding ever-increasing evience that there is no such thing as typical, just endless diversity.

[slang]

The Copernican Principle basically says that we're typical. We're finding ever-increasing evience that there is no such thing as typical, just endless diversity.

I'd say it says there's nothing special about us or our place, and seeing so many different types of planetary systems confirms that. [/threadjack]

[Paul Beardsley]

I'd say it says there's nothing special about us or our place, and seeing so many different types of planetary systems confirms that. [/threadjack]

I think Noclevername is (justifiably) reacting to an opinion, repeated ad nauseum by one poster (not in this thread), which tries to equate "nothing special" with "typical" - that is to say, because one solar system has a life-bearing planet, then loads of other solar systems will also have life-bearing planets.

It's an appealing idea but it's not supported by evidence.

[Noclevername]

I'd say it says there's nothing special about us or our place, and seeing so many different types of planetary systems confirms that. [/threadjack]

It says we're not unique. But nearly every system we've seen so far has had some kind of uniqueness, like snowflakes-- some are similar, but no two exactly alike.

[caveman1917]

It says we're not unique. But nearly every system we've seen so far has had some kind of uniqueness, like snowflakes-- some are similar, but no two exactly alike.

So before we observed those planetary systems, the consensus was that every planetary system would be exactly like ours? Including each planet at the exact same location, temperature, equal moons, etc... You must surely see that's a misinterpretation of the copernican principle?

[Trebuchet]

It says we're not unique. But nearly every system we've seen so far has had some kind of uniqueness, like snowflakes-- some are similar, but no two exactly alike.

Completely off topic, of course, but ever since I first heard, at the age of six or seven, that no two snowflakes are alike, I've been wondering who looked at each and every one of them to verify that!

[Noclevername]

So before we observed those planetary systems, the consensus was that every planetary system would be exactly like ours? Including each planet at the exact same location, temperature, equal moons, etc... You must surely see that's a misinterpretation of the copernican principle?

No, that's not what I said. But previously, the assumption was that they were mostly like ours-- a few small terrestrial planets close in, big gas giants out. We now know that there's no one common pattern, and lots and lots of planets are in between Earth size and Neptune, whereas our Solar System has none in that size range.


EDIT: And we are hijacking this thread, so drink up, me hearties, yo ho!