Stephen Hawking
I just killed a large beetle that flew into my room. He was a remarkable machine, some might say “miraculous.” But he was a nuisance and attacked me viciously, so I squashed him.
What was the purpose of this incredibly designed machine.
To be squished? To become food for another machine?
We seem to attach an importance to organisms because of their apparent complexity but they are just prey for other animals, or windshield splats, etc.
Human beings think of ourselves as marvels of engineering, but we are just shark food or cannon fodder.
We are merely myxomycetous growth on a tiny moist pea in the cosmic kitchen midden.
I can. I find it harder to imagine time being finite than time being infinite. I can understand both in a theoretical sense, but I find it harder to imagine the former than the latter.
Pretty much the same is true about space. I can understand in a theoretical way that space could be finite, but I find it easier to imagine an infinite space.
Surely you know that each organism plays a role in the larger cycle of things. Even the Dung Beetle serves a purpose. (Although I’m still wondering about the mosquito.) But my guess is that some etymologist knows, or will soon know the answer.
But what does this have to do with IDers like myself not being able to “grasp evolution”?
I don’t get this because often events aren’t just unlikely, they’re impossible. Like even though I can concieve of life evolving forever it’s not almost mathematically certain that as some point in time bears will look like an octopus. It’s not like our sample space is all possible life forms of even all possible modes for living. Maybe I’m not understanding what you’re saying?
I remember it in an old Anne McCaffery novel, but wouldn’t be surprised if it was a line she was recycling. It wasn’t a Pern novel, I don’t think, but I don’t remember what it was.
Complexity of life leads you to imagine that there must be a high purpose and therefore intentional design. But there is no high purpose, just the cycle of vicious, brutal life.
See his OP. I merely regurgitated his own assertion. That is the nature of contradictions — they don’t make sense.
That’s why it says “unlikely” and not “impossible”
an event with a 1 in a billion chance is highly unlikely with five opportunities, but with a quadrillion opportunities the event is highly likely.
No, “ID” says nothing of the sort.
What you refer to is Theistic Evolution, a belief that (a) God initiated the universe we know with rules, then allowed physical systems to follow those rules (with or without an indiscernible nudge from time to time or the infusion of a soul in some constructs) to the point where the universe with which we are familiar (including its myriad life forms on our particular planet) came to exist as we know it.
Intelligent Design is a very particular branch of bad science that looks for a god of the gaps to fill in questions that we have not yet answered regarding the processes of neo-Darwinian Evolution. ID is a very limited subset of (and dead end to) the Theory of Natural Selection.
The problem with using the term Intelligent Design (bad science) when one actually refers to Theistic Evolution (philosophy and theology) is that it gives supporters of ID the impression that they have a right to impose their bad science on school systems because many people are Theistic Evolutionists.
If you are a Theistic Evolutionist (as I am) please do not corrupt our actual beliefs (philosophy and theology) by allowing bad scientists to try to co-opt our beliefs by conflating the two distinct terms.
Wow I totally missed your point. When threads get this long that happens to me. :smack:
I guess my point should be addressed to his OP.
Just to say it. I believe in evolution, and I understand the time involved. But if you look at the diversity of life and take a sort of educated guess about the number of living organisims ever on the planet and the number of changes necessary to account for this diversity it still makes me say WOW! :eek:
So you say. That’s your opinion which get’s into “Is there a God” which I suggest you refer to other threads. In fact, they mostly agree with you.
But I guess I’ll have to repeat:
If you chose to not answer the question, WHICH WAS THE TITLE OF YOUR THREAD, I’ll leave you alone. Promise.
Are you using this argument for life starting or more for how life has progressed?
I agree with you for the life starting argument, but once certain rules have been set down for life and reproduction a lot of possibilities have been eliminated.
Are you saying you also think what I said about unlikely events is contradictory?
You should stop pondering the big questions of the cosmos and focus on why, after billions of humans have been born and died, you are the first to be viciously attacked by a beetle.
Life starting.
And certainly not everything is possible.
Life evolved as environments changed.
I don’t believe you can comprehend a billion years or the astronomical number of reproductive events which created the various life forms on earth.
You should stop pondering the big questions of the cosmos and focus on why, after billions of humans have been born and died, you are the first to be viciously attacked by a beetle.
I was using ID as the belief that there exists an Intelligent Designer.
But thanks for the info. I’m very interested. I know that I’ve heard my belief (and your) being discussed as ID many times, which may just prove your point that it is trying to be hijacked. But I don’t know anyone who believes in God and evolution that would not agree with us. Where’s the middle ground?
When referred to as a science, I thought that ID was an attempt to support our Theistic Evolution belief through the observations in the real world. Is that not right? How is attempting to find evidence of an Intelligent Designer contorting that our belief. I don’t think they’ll find it, but maybe they will. No?
What did you mean by: "Intelligent Design is a very particular branch of bad science that looks for a god of the gaps to fill in questions that we have not yet answered regarding the processes of neo-Darwinian Evolution. ID is a very limited subset of (and dead end to) the Theory of Natural Selection.
Thanks. Your input is highly regarded.
No not at all if it only involves the beginnings of rudimentary life on earth.
Count this as a second request for clarification of this distinction.