Intelligent Evolution (Not Intelligent Design)

[jsamuel]

I propose a non-theory called "Intelligent Evolution". Now tell me if there is another name for it or if someone already thought this up. I am almost absolutly sure this has been talked about before somewhere.

Anyway here are the two main points:

1. God created the Universe.
2. Evolution is a scientific process that describes how life changes over time in the Universe.

Therefore,

God created the scientific process of evolution and all the subprocesses that make it up. This also means that evolution must follow the laws of the Universe that God set forth at its creation.

What do you think?

[Blue-Jay]

1. Who created God?

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. It's also knows as

Theistic evolution, and it's a theory I subscribe to. :^)

http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/liberalchristians.htm#row2

[Viking12]

3. Sounds great...

Just keep it the fuck out of the science classroom.

[jsamuel]

16. Agreed

[daveskilt]

21. funny - and agreed!

[Dogmudgeon]

4. It's already been thought of

It's called "Intelligent Design".

Really, that's exactly what ID is.

There is no reason for it, except as a way to shoehorn religion into the schools.

--p!

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. ID is not about evolution, really. To RW Xians, the idea of

being descended from an ape-like creature is anathema to them.

[jsamuel]

7. Well the way I have seen ID pushed, people basicly use it to try to DEBUNK

evolution. Which is not what I was proposing.

[progdonkey]

22. that's not what ID is

Intelligent Design is really nothing more than an attempt to coat Biblical Creationism in the mantel of logic. It says that the world is so complex, that we could only have arrived at this multitude of species with the active participation of a supernatural being.

Theistic Evolution is completely different in where it places God in the process of Evolution. God created the process and all of the natural laws, but allows it that process to go on unhindered and create whatever it will.

I think it would be analogous to a computer programmer writing lines of code that simulate an artificial world with no intention to create any specific species. The Theistic Evolutionist would discover the lines of code and say "here are the lines of code that provided the rules for the formation of these species, but who created the lines of code? Must be some sort of Programmer."

Although that answer (unlike the statement of the nature of the code) would just be unscientific speculation, it would still be quite different from the IDer, who would say, "The inhabitants of this world are so complex, that the Programmer must have designed each and every species in it." This is quite easily seen as a completely unscientific conclusion.

To the former, God created the process; to the later, God is the process.

[Stevepol]

28. There are other approaches to evolution too, always around.

During Darwin's time, I believe it was Wallace (could be wrong but it was somebody in that time), who wanted to include the idea of "consciousness" or such in the scheme. Darwin's theory has it that changes occur as a result of the survival of the fittest, that is, the species that are the best adapted to the circumstances survive and procreate. This certainly is true and can be shown in many ways, one of which is the way bacteria become more and more resistant to anti-biotics.

But I think there's a good argument to be made that living creatures change by some factor in consciousness that is like "desire" in a human being. Darwinians would say that acquired characteristics can't be transmitted, but if you think about a certain condition long enough you create that condition in your body, a mind-body truism. And would this not possibly affect the very genes? I think there might be evidence to support this.

Also, some mathematicians say (saw this in a book about the environment) that using the time scales for generations among various living species, there's just not enough time for the Darwinian "survival of the species" method to create the immense complexity and sophistication of development that we see about us, particularly the development of the human species.

I think the "Intelligent Design" people might have glommed onto this last idea, but I haven't read anything by them so I don't know.

Anyway, I think there are many good arguments to be made for the way consciousness and biology might have interacted in evolution. This may be an area of investigation in the future when there's a way to test for such things as consciousness.

[BattyDem]

5. God has no place in scientific discussion ... period.

Faith-based science is useless. Why research ANYTHING if you can simply explain it by saying, "God created it" :shrug:

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. Well of course not, but are scientists entitled to believe

that there might be someone or something out there that kickstarted evolution?

[BattyDem]

They can believe whatever they want ...

but if it's going in a textbook or a classroom, there has to be far more than faith behind it. Others must be able to analyze and test the conclusion.

[GreenPartyVoter]

19. Agreed.

[daveskilt]

24. agreed. Religion and science can coexist - but not in a schoolbook

I never really see the conflict myself. saying God did it isnt even critical thinking let alone good science so we shouldnt teach it as science. that doesnt mean it shouldnt be taught - teaching religion in the home and in churches to folks that want to hear it only helps society (as long as they stick to their spiritual jurisdiction and stay the hell away from legislating their idea of morality).

If science is a search for truth then why would that scare religious people? If God is truth and religion is truth then science is only improving religion. something incidently that doesn't work the other way - science informs religion, religion does not inform science (ethically maybe? no cutting up living people Goebels style to see what's inside???)

[ck4829]

8. (Putting on my RW'er poofy toupee)

"It's horrible! Aaaaaaaah, OMG!"

(Taking off horrible wig)

That's what the RW'ers will say.

And for your efforts in giving RW'ers aneurysms, I say "Well done!"

[jsamuel]

14. ok, that's what I was going for, THANKS!

I was hoping someone would get it.

[Walt Starr]

9. That is not a theory. It is a philosophy

Sorry, but a theory must be falsifiable. How do you falsify god?

[jsamuel]

12. your right it isn't a theory, good catch

[Village Idiot]

10. I already have MY God:

http://www.venganza.org/

[Deja Q]

13. God allowed his creation to evolve; I thought of that long ago.

I also take occasional opportunities to tell the X-bots out there when they pompously huff'n'puff "I am a Christian because I believe God made everything and I disagree with the idea of evolution because it has nothing to do with god" (or whatever variant).

It's just fun to point out to the the programmed robots how dim they are.

[formerrepuke]

15. Personally, I think evolution is a pretty good design.. organisms which

cannot adapt to change die off; others adapt. It's a kind of biological "free will"... One can place God into the mix (as I do) or not at all. Anyway, science doesn't need to explain God, or make allowances for Divine design.

[daveskilt]

17. A mormon theologist (and they claim to be christian too) once said

Guy called BH Roberts I found some quotes for (fairly progressive guy surprisingly - bout 100 yrs ago)

anyway - this bloke came up with the following - God exists. God follows natural laws existing in the universe. Evolution is a natural law. Evolution is one of the many natural laws most of which we don't know about.

but his main point is this:- If science shows (as it does) that evolution is how we got here then evolution is how we got here and people who believe in God have to accept that evolution is one of the things God used to create people. Science is not in conflict with religion because religion deals with unknowns - as science creates "knowns" religion deals with the remaining unknowns. If religion is real then proofs from science will only confirm religious truth. Of course the cop out in this is that when science disproves an accepted religious truth (world not flat or center of universe etc) then this doesnt disprove religion only proves that the religious tradition was false

[jsamuel]

20. hmmm, that sounds interresting

[mmonk]

18. It comes in

with an answer that can't be tested nor shows any evidence. Therefore, it was not arrived at by any scientific method. Therefore it's not technically scientific theory but a religious theory about a scientific process which puts it in the theology category.

[Zhade]

23. #1 is neither proven nor a given.

So it's flawed right off the bat.

[HereSince1628]

27. Exactly. Moreover, it's a common position used by apologists

who don't want to offend either believers of the western creation myth or scientists.

As a college/university professor I found this position to actually be very common, it might have even been dominant among the other scientists I worked around.

I personally think this approach is more a social mechanism to arrive at some middle ground which can facilitate the maintenance of associations with family and friends who want to remain involved in christian organizations as it is a true system of explaining the origins of the universe.

[Ian David]

25. I think it's called, "The Gawd of the Gaps," or "Argument from Ignorance"

I'm not calling you ignorant. That's just the name of the logical fallacy.

Summary: "If we can't explain it, then Gawd must have done it."

[DanCa]

26. Part Man or Part Monkey _ Bruce Springsteen 18 Tracks 1998

Well did God make man in a breath of holy fire
Or did he crawl on up out of the muck and mire
Well the man on the street believes what the bible tells him so
Well you can ask me mister cause I know
Tell them soul sucking preachers to come down and see
Part Man, Part Monkey baby that's me.