# Was It All An Accident...Or Did An Intelligent **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 19, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721 "2013-01-19T17:18:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/401 "2013-01-26T15:25:24Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Science limits itself to its proper role. Yeah, yeah, every now and then there are some trespasses – but never within five orders of magnitude of the trespasses by religion against science! I agree, but because science does that it becomes less useful. For instance, Darwin made a lot of observations regarding different species and their development. Suppose you didn’t agree with some of those observations, are you going to spend the rest of your life double-checking his observations. Probably not, at some point you are going to have to come to some of your own conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/402 "2013-01-26T15:30:37Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Now you said that “empiricism does not require you to maximize value.” that’s interesting. However, you need to be trying to maximize something, otherwise you wouldn’t bother drawing up a list of criteria and making continuous observations. Couldn’t you simply be learning and observing, or attempting to maximize value just in specific situations without taking it to some kind of obsessive extreme? > [@pchaos](#): > > I agree, but because science does that it becomes less useful. For instance, Darwin made a lot of observations regarding different species and their development. Suppose you didn’t agree with some of those observations, are you going to spend the rest of your life double-checking his observations. Probably not, at some point you are going to have to come to some of your own conclusions. At what point in your life do you have to come up with your own conclusions about speciation and evolution? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/403 "2013-01-26T15:33:28Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > I agree, but because science does that it becomes less useful. For instance, Darwin made a lot of observations regarding different species and their development. Suppose you didn’t agree with some of those observations, are you going to spend the rest of your life double-checking his observations. Probably not, at some point you are going to have to come to some of your own conclusions. You must also had missed people like Jonathan Wells (and he did go to Berkeley), as an Intelligent Designer proponent, he never gets to any useful conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/404 "2013-01-26T15:51:12Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > At what point in your life do you have to come up with your own conclusions about speciation and evolution? Call me cynical, but I believe that after we become adults our basic beliefs don’t change. What people do, and I will include myself in this group is what we do is rationalize our actions so that the belief stays intact. So if you agreed with Darwin at the age of 21, you are probably not going to double-check his experiments makes sure his observations were accurate. You would only double-check his observations if you disagreed. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/405 "2013-01-26T15:59:49Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Call me cynical, but I believe that after we become adults our basic beliefs don’t change. What people do, and I will include myself in this group is what we do is rationalize our actions so that the belief stays intact. > > So if you agreed with Darwin at the age of 21, you are probably not going to double-check his experiments makes sure his observations were accurate. You would only double-check his observations if you disagreed. It should be obvious, but clearly it is not by you, scientists still double checked Darwin. Disagreement is only one factor in science, many times there is curiosity to see if new technologies will find some unexpected items in old and already checked by others ideas. Some times it leads to even new branches of science and usually the old observations are not rejected, but they are just modified. ---
**Author:** ![saje](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saje/32/3631_2.png) [@saje](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saje)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/406 "2013-01-26T16:02:04Z")
And what, exactly, are “basic beliefs”? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/407 "2013-01-26T16:06:46Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Here let me give you example of carrying it out to the extreme. > > Why not use empiricism in your personal relationships. > > Let’s say you have a couple of guys you hang out with to watch baseball games on the big screen. An empiricist would have a list of criteria to evaluate the relationship and then go with different groups of 2 to watch baseball games until he found the right combination that met his criteria. Loyalty would disappear in favor of objective analysis. Yeah, but so what? All you’ve proven is that extremists are idiots. We already knew that. In practice, atheists have emotions, loyalty, etc, _because those things are useful in a social context_ and religious people do some things empirically (you don’t pray about the amount of washing powder to put in the machine, I imagine). ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/408 "2013-01-26T16:07:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > …curiosity to see if new technologies will find some unexpected items in old and already checked by others ideas. Some times it leads to even new branches of science and usually the old observations are not rejected, but they are just modified. This curiosity and modification of old observations…I consider it similar to rationalizing…so as a consequence the basic belief does not change. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/409 "2013-01-26T16:15:05Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Call me cynical, but I believe that after we become adults our basic beliefs don’t change. What people do, and I will include myself in this group is what we do is rationalize our actions so that the belief stays intact. > > So if you agreed with Darwin at the age of 21, you are probably not going to double-check his experiments makes sure his observations were accurate. You would only double-check his observations if you disagreed. This utterly contradicts everything you said earlier about empiricists. So scientists are all \*trustful \*now? ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/410 "2013-01-26T16:23:52Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > This utterly contradicts everything you said earlier about empiricists. So scientists are all \*trustful \*now? Well…the scientist Gigobuster is talking about is more trustworthy because even though he agrees with Darwin he is willing to examine his observations more closely to see if he can elaborate on the findings…but I still see it as a process of rationalizing. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/411 "2013-01-26T16:25:47Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Call me cynical, but I believe that after we become adults our basic beliefs don’t change. Yours did. > [@](#): > > So if you agreed with Darwin at the age of 21, you are probably not going to double-check his experiments makes sure his observations were accurate. You would only double-check his observations if you disagreed. Not true at all. Scientists who agreed with Darwin about the basic concept of evolution have double checked and revised his theories. ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/412 "2013-01-26T16:36:49Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Yours did. I suppose you’re talking about rejecting religion at 21 or so and then embracing it 30 years later. I did not reject a basic belief of mine. When I’m talking about basic beliefs, I’m really talking about worldview or philosophy. If the findings of Darwin are part of your worldview then it is a basic belief. For me my basic belief was I believed in a rational universe at the age 21 and I’ve modified that view (rationalized) so that now God exists in my rational universe. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/413 "2013-01-26T16:40:19Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > I suppose you’re talking about rejecting religion at 21 or so and then embracing it 30 years later. Yes. > [@](#): > > When I’m talking about basic beliefs, I’m really talking about worldview or philosophy. And the existence of an omnipotent god and the teachings of Christ have nothing to do with your worldview or philosophy? > [@](#): > > For me my basic belief was I believed in a rational universe at the age 21 and I’ve modified that view (rationalized) so that now God exists in my rational universe. I don’t know how else to put this, but I don’t believe you. Belief in god is a basic belief by any standard. Like I said earlier, it certainly underpins a lot of other beliefs. You’re calling it something else because you believe it suits your rhetorical point, which it really doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/414 "2013-01-26T16:40:19Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > This curiosity and modification of old observations…I consider it similar to rationalizing…so as a consequence the basic belief does not change. Nope, what you are saying here is just a “mega fail” point. Double checking does also get science to topple down ideas that are wrong, even if the ideas are cherished as beneficial, just ask Fleischmann and Pons. [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cold\_fusion](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cold_fusion) > [@](#): > > Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons were electrochemists who had worked together for many years. As they tell it, in 1983 they saw something anomalous and thought “That’s funny …”; refining their experiments over the next six years, they finally decided that all chemical explanations had been shown false and that a nuclear reaction was the only remaining possibility.[2] Their paper, “Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium,”[3] was accepted by the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry March 22, 1989, but was publicized by press conference the next day[4] and was published April 10. They were unable to replicate their process publicly after the press releases. > > Pons’ and Fleischmann’s work was quickly discredited by scientists, due to multiple, repeated failures of replication, and a lack of reports of expected neutron flux from the fusion reaction. Darwin’s theory of evolution has largely survived the tests of time, genetics only came later to confirm it. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/415 "2013-01-26T16:47:59Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Well…the scientist Gigobuster is talking about is more trustworthy because even though he agrees with Darwin he is willing to examine his observations more closely to see if he can elaborate on the findings…but I still see it as a process of rationalizing. But _you’ve_ double-checked Darwin, because you disagree, right? What form did this check take, and what were your results? ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/416 "2013-01-26T16:54:09Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I don’t know how else to put this, but I don’t believe you. Belief in god is a basic belief by any standard. Like I said earlier, it certainly underpins a lot of other beliefs. You’re calling it something else because you believe it suits your rhetorical point, which it really doesn’t. Well, I belonged to a church before I became a “lefty” so it’s possible I didn’t really reject God at 21. Could have been youthful rebellion who knows? But I do believe that God is part of my rational universe right now. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/417 "2013-01-26T16:56:24Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Well, I belonged to a church before I became a “lefty” so it’s possible I didn’t really reject God at 21. You say you did. Am I supposed to know better? > [@](#): > > Could have been youthful rebellion who knows? That would still count. > [@](#): > > But I do believe that God is part of my rational universe right now. Right. And given how much you talk about it, it’s obviously a basic belief. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/418 "2013-01-26T17:04:15Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Well, I belonged to a church before I became a **“lefty”** … (bolding mine)It didn’t bother me before, but since you’ve shown a complete inadequacy when it comes to defining words, I’m going to have to insist that you give us your definition of “lefty” so that we can get a better sense of what you were. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/419 "2013-01-26T17:06:17Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Well, I belonged to a church before I became a “lefty” so it’s possible I didn’t really reject God at 21. Could have been youthful rebellion who knows? On second thought this comment is kind of telling. Do you think you can determine who is really an atheist and who isn’t, and do you think you are in a position to figure out which reasons for rejecting religion are valid and which are not? ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/420 "2013-01-26T17:20:36Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > (bolding mine)It didn’t bother me before, but since you’ve shown a complete inadequacy when it comes to defining words, I’m going to have to insist that you give us your definition of “lefty” so that we can get a better sense of what you were. When I was an undergrad at Cal Berkeley, it was towards the end of the Free Speech Movement and the radical left. My girlfriend actually thought there was a possibility of a communist revolution in the U.S. that’s how far to the left she was. I wasn’t that far to the left but I was getting there. However, I knew that if I mentioned that I believed in God. She would have said “are you kidding me” and end the relationship right there. God was a joke to us “leftys.” It kept people believing that they would get their reward in heaven instead of acting in the present and making the world better. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721.md?page=22)