#4: Is intelligent design a viable argument for the existence of God?

[afstandopleren]

Yup, I'm Dutch too. ' I already PM'd Pokequaza about it. Maybe I can help him translate it so it can be put on the forum for all to see.

 

[Pokequaza]

Intelligence has nothing to do with being conscious IMHO. Sure, we have the insight to make tools and such, but animals have that too. But what clearly separates us from other animals is that we can make decisions. So how did this came to be? Why are we the only species with conscious minds?

uhh... ok, first you said animals are conscious too, and then you said not..? I assume your Dutch too and so i'll try to explain in Dutch, srry for those who can't understand:

Ok, ten eerst de meeste dieren (op uitzondering van kwallen en andere ''hersenloze dieren'' na) kunnen alle dieren keuzes maken, zoals Heavenly Spoon al zei, ze moeten wel omdat ze anders niks zouden kunnen. De dieren met een bewustzijn bestaan ook, maar zijn er weer minder. Een bewustzijn is niks anders dan zelfherkenning, dieren (zoals een ekster) die zich in een spiegel kunnen herkennen hebben dus een bewustzijn, hun intelligentie daarintegen is weer minder, vanwege het probleem dat eksters bijvoorbeeld het heel moeilijk krijgen als ze voorwerpen willen gebruiken (door de vleugels) en omdat hun communicatie niveau niet zo hoog ligt, ook is hun hersen-inhoud een stuk minder als dat van de mens.

We kunnen dus zeggen dat de mens elke voorwaarde heeft om als ''intelligent'' beschouwd te worden. Een chimpansee heeft ook veel van die voorwaarden, alleen hun communicatie ligt weer lager en ze hebben een kleine hersen-inhoud in vergelijking met ons.

De vraag hoe het zo gekomen is is moeilijk te beantwoorden. Elk wezen hier op aarde leeft met het doel: overleven. Ze passen zich aan aan het klimaat, de omgeving, het beschikbare voedsel en eventuele roofdieren (oftewel dieren die hoger in de voedsel-keten zitten als zijzelf). Als de voorouders van de mens vroeger jongen baarden met hogere bewustzijn en als die het beter deden in de natuur, dan werd deze eigenschap natuurlijk doorgeven aan hun jongen. Het bleek dus een stuk handiger te zijn om een hoger bewustzijn te hebben en dat is dus ook gaan ontwikkelen. Je kan ook niet alles in de evolutie bewijzen met feiten en wetenschap, soms zit er ook gewoon een beetje geluk tussen, een foutje misschien wel, of de zogenoemde mutaties.

Dus intelligentie heeft dus wel degelijk te maken met het bewustzijn. Je moet een redelijke intelligentie hebben wil je een bewustzijn hebben. Als er nog wat onduidelijk is vraag het maar.

Again sorry for those who can't understand it.

Pokequaza, I THINK (based on usertitle and location) that afstandopleren is Dutch as well, so you might as well give it a shot. I'd also be glad to translate if needed. Let's not let language barriers get in the way of conversation

But anyhow, I'm pretty sure most animals with a brain are perfectly capable of making decisions as well, otherwise they just be standing there all day trying to figure out what to do. A cow at one point will have to decide to start eating grass or walk around, and chimps can solve some rather difficult problems. I've seen a lot of other animals do this stuff as well.

Ofcourse animals can make decisions too, i mean, a lot of animals can teach theirselves things and solve problems. Look at rats or squids they're way way smarter than people think, even more smarter when people teach them things. like squids (without teaching) are capable of opening pots uhh.. how they're called.. like peanut-butter pots (were you have to screw the top off)

btw, you said 'translate' so can you speak dutch..? :O

 

[afstandopleren]

From what I believe, those choices are only made because their instinct tells them it's feeding time, it's hunting time or whatever. If animals really could make choice like humans, then the world would be a lot different obviously, but animals aren't like "Hmm, i have some time on my paws/claws/whatevers, let's try something new" for a silly example.

And the Heavenly Spoon is from Belgium. So yes, I assume he can.

 

[Heavenly Spoon]

Of course I can, I'm from Belgium, it's my 1st language.

Anyhow, before I start translating, I found a pretty interesting video dealing with bacon's argument of the probability of life. I know it doesn't answer all his question, but whatever, more vids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aGEXMyFWyg

Translation will be added here later in an edit, or will be in a new post if someone happens to reply to this before I get around to translating. Or if afstandopleren already translated it.

 

[DarthPika]

Unless someone translates that big mess of Dutch, I can't really post much.

 

[afstandopleren]

Spoon, that vid was hillarious! And I will try to translate the Dutch 'gibberish' if Spoon isn't already doing so (Which I think Spoon is).

 

[bacon]

My youtube is being strange at the moment, so sadly I can't watch that.

The Goldilocks enigma is somewhat misunderstood, because many people think the "there are billions of planets out there so one must at least support life" suggestion is valid. While that fact is true, it is not actually relating to the argument; The Goldilocks enigma is saying that in order for us to have planets and such in the first place, the universal constants in nature need to have very specific values (3 dimensions on a macroscopic scale, pi is always 3.141, etc etc etc). This is what I and others are getting at.

The multiverse counter-argument is something I will have to think about, but I have doubts in the back of my mind. I'll post on that later- but I haven't forgotten about it.

 

[Pokequaza]

From what I believe, those choices are only made because their instinct tells them it's feeding time, it's hunting time or whatever. If animals really could make choice like humans, then the world would be a lot different obviously, but animals aren't like "Hmm, I have some time on my paws/claws/whatevers, let's try something new" for a silly example.

And the Heavenly Spoon is from Belgium. So yes, I assume he can.

x| really have to look at peoples profiles before posting things about countries or languages xD

But lots of monkeys can think that way, a lot of animals think like: hey, what's that? something new? let's investigate it (or solving problems etc.). Probably their brain-mass stops them from real trying something new if there isn't a good reason for it, and some animals don't have, they can survive very well and don't have to be that much smarter

Of course I can, I'm from Belgium, it's my 1st language.

Anyhow, before I start translating, I found a pretty interesting video dealing with bacon's argument of the probability of life. I know it doesn't answer all his question, but whatever, more vids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aGEXMyFWyg

Translation will be added here later in an edit, or will be in a new post if someone happens to reply to this before I get around to translating. Or if afstandopleren already translated it.

If you would translate it, that would be awesm, srry i don't know that much words in English.. i could try in English, but your own language is always easier and i would probably stuck at some parts xD

Unless someone translates that big mess of Dutch, I can't really post much.

LOL it isn't a big mess, it's... uhmm... ok, it's a big mess (if you can't read Dutch )

 

[Heavenly Spoon]

Okay, 1st of all, most animals (except for Jellyfish and other "brainless" animals) can make decisions, like Heavenly Spoon said before, They have to because there's just no other way. Animals with a consciousness exist as well, but in lesser numbers. A consciousness is nothing but self-recognition, so animals (like a Magpie) who can recognize themselves in a mirror have consciousness, however, their intelligence is quite a bit less, because of problems like not being able to pick up objects (because of the wings) and because of their communication level being lower as well, the brain-capacity is also less than that of human beings.

We can say that humans have all the criteria to be considered ''intelligent''. A chimpanzee also has a lot of them, only their communication level is lower again, and they have a smaller brain capacity.

The question of how they came to be like that is hard to answer. Every creature on this Earth has one goal: to survive. They adapt to the climate, the environment, the food available and possible predators (or creatures higher in the food chain). If the ancestors of humans used to give birth to babies with a higher consciousness and if they did better in nature, this feature would then be in turn also passed on to their children. So it seemed like it was rather useful to have a higher consciousness, which is why it started developing. You can't prove anything in evolution with facts and science anyway, sometimes there's a little bit of luck in there, maybe even mistakes, or the previously mentioned mutations.

So there is indeed a connection between intelligence and consciousness. You need a decent amount of intelligence to have consciousness. If anything else is unclear, just ask.

Sorry for any errors, I kinda had to hurry.

 

[bacon]

I think this is just a misunderstanding of how we define and understand the terms "consciousness" and "intelligence" rather than a flaw of the theory of evolution. As we still do not fully understand things such as animal (or even human) psychology, it's unfair to use this as an anti-evolution argument.

 

[Pokequaza]

I think this is just a misunderstanding of how we define and understand the terms "consciousness" and "intelligence" rather than a flaw of the theory of evolution. As we still do not fully understand things such as animal (or even human) psychology, it's unfair to use this as an anti-evolution argument.

Well if you think i'm wrong i would like to hear your theory of consciousness and intelligence.

 

[afstandopleren]

uhh... ok, first you said animals are conscious too, and then you said not..? I assume your Dutch too and so I'll try to explain in Dutch, srry for those who can't understand:

Ok, ten eerst de meeste dieren (op uitzondering van kwallen en andere ''hersenloze dieren'' na) kunnen alle dieren keuzes maken, zoals Heavenly Spoon al zei, ze moeten wel omdat ze anders niks zouden kunnen. De dieren met een bewustzijn bestaan ook, maar zijn er weer minder. Een bewustzijn is niks anders dan zelfherkenning, dieren (zoals een ekster) die zich in een spiegel kunnen herkennen hebben dus een bewustzijn, hun intelligentie daarintegen is weer minder, vanwege het probleem dat eksters bijvoorbeeld het heel moeilijk krijgen als ze voorwerpen willen gebruiken (door de vleugels) en omdat hun communicatie niveau niet zo hoog ligt, ook is hun hersen-inhoud een stuk minder als dat van de mens.

We kunnen dus zeggen dat de mens elke voorwaarde heeft om als ''intelligent'' beschouwd te worden. Een chimpansee heeft ook veel van die voorwaarden, alleen hun communicatie ligt weer lager en ze hebben een kleine hersen-inhoud in vergelijking met ons.

De vraag hoe het zo gekomen is is moeilijk te beantwoorden. Elk wezen hier op aarde leeft met het doel: overleven. Ze passen zich aan aan het klimaat, de omgeving, het beschikbare voedsel en eventuele roofdieren (oftewel dieren die hoger in de voedsel-keten zitten als zijzelf). Als de voorouders van de mens vroeger jongen baarden met hogere bewustzijn en als die het beter deden in de natuur, dan werd deze eigenschap natuurlijk doorgeven aan hun jongen. Het bleek dus een stuk handiger te zijn om een hoger bewustzijn te hebben en dat is dus ook gaan ontwikkelen. Je kan ook niet alles in de evolutie bewijzen met feiten en wetenschap, soms zit er ook gewoon een beetje geluk tussen, een foutje misschien wel, of de zogenoemde mutaties.

Dus intelligentie heeft dus wel degelijk te maken met het bewustzijn. Je moet een redelijke intelligentie hebben wil je een bewustzijn hebben. Als er nog wat onduidelijk is vraag het maar.

Ok, first most animals (with the exeptions of jellyfish and other 'brainless' animals) make choices, like Heavenly Spoon already said, they'd have to otherwise they could not do anything. Animals with consciousness do exist, but just to a lesser degree. A Consciousness is basically being to recognize one self, animals like an Ekster for example (Don't know the English word for this bird that is known to steal shiny stuff for it's nest) that can recognize themselves in a mirror have a consciousness , their intelligence on the other side is diminished compared to other animals, because it would be troublesome for a bird to decide to use a tool because of their wings. And because the birds communication skills aren't very sophisticated, their brain capacity stays rather small compared to humans.

Therefor we can easily say that humans meet every condition to be called/viewed as "intelligent". A Chimpansee meets a lot of those conditions as well but their communication skills are on a lower level, making them have a smaller brain capacity as well compared to us humans.

The question to how this all came to be is hard to answer. Every creature on this Earth lives with a goal: Survival. They adapt to the climate, surroundings, available food resources, predators (AKA animals that are higher up in the food chain then themselves). If the ancestors of man earlier gave birth to offspring with higher consciousness and those offspring did a better job at surviving, then that trait would obviously be passed on to their offspring. So having a higher consciousness appeared to be a good thing to have and thus it started to develop. You can't prove everything about evolution with facts and science. Sometimes there is a luck factor or a genetic mistake, the so called mutations.

So intelligence definitely has got something to do with consciousness. You need to posses a fair amount of intelligence in order to be/have/get conscious. If something is still unclear, don't hesitate to ask.

OMG, wat was dat ff wat anders. Pfffft Ik hoop dat ik het een beetje goed heb vertaald. I hope I translated it in the correct way. Let me know if I have not.

 

[bacon]

I think this is just a misunderstanding of how we define and understand the terms "consciousness" and "intelligence" rather than a flaw of the theory of evolution. As we still do not fully understand things such as animal (or even human) psychology, it's unfair to use this as an anti-evolution argument.

Well if you think I'm wrong I would like to hear your theory of consciousness and intelligence.

I'm not claiming to have solved 100's of years of puzzling science, and I have no solid theory of my own. But that is not the point I was trying to make; you were essentially trying to disprove one theory with science that is far from understood, which of course does not work.

 

[Pokequaza]

I think this is just a misunderstanding of how we define and understand the terms "consciousness" and "intelligence" rather than a flaw of the theory of evolution. As we still do not fully understand things such as animal (or even human) psychology, it's unfair to use this as an anti-evolution argument.

Well if you think I'm wrong I would like to hear your theory of consciousness and intelligence.

I'm not claiming to have solved 100's of years of puzzling science, and I have no solid theory of my own. But that is not the point I was trying to make; you were essentially trying to disprove one theory with science that is far from understood, which of course does not work.

Didn't make to make any offense, just curious what other people thought if it. But which theory did i disprove then?

 

[afstandopleren]

I'm not claiming to have solved 100's of years of puzzling science, and I have no solid theory of my own. But that is not the point I was trying to make; you were essentially trying to disprove one theory with science that is far from understood, which of course does not work.

Just because a certain science isn't understood by all does not make it an instant no go theory.

And did I translate your post correctly, Pokequaza?

 

[Pokequaza]

I'm not claiming to have solved 100's of years of puzzling science, and I have no solid theory of my own. But that is not the point I was trying to make; you were essentially trying to disprove one theory with science that is far from understood, which of course does not work.

Just because a certain science isn't understood by all does not make it an instant no go theory.

And did I translate your post correctly, Pokequaza?

You're right

Yes, you did very well! Heavenly Spoon too, thanks to you two! and again srry for not being be able to post it in English, even in Dutch it was very hard to explain though...

 

[apophys]

There is no evidence of "intelligent design" whatsoever. Therefore, it is not a viable argument for anything.
It was only thought up by those whose personal beliefs did not agree with scientific fact.



Humans are merely the first animals to develop technology. This is probably because primates have the ability to precisely manipulate their near environment with opposable thumbs. The arms of the first humans were not used for walking, giving them ample opportunity to manipulate things through the drive for play. A large brain was the obvious next step, then we learned to use it, and here we are.

Other animals (such as dolphins) also have large brains, but lack the ability to manipulate their environment the way we do. Maybe they will develop it in a couple hundred thousand years.


Humans are not the first animals with intelligence, and not the first with emotion.



What drives the fast pace of evolution? Natural disasters that decimate huge populations. Horrific, I know.

 

[esperante]

Of course I can, I'm from Belgium, it's my 1st language.

Anyhow, before I start translating, I found a pretty interesting video dealing with bacon's argument of the probability of life. I know it doesn't answer all his question, but whatever, more vids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aGEXMyFWyg

Translation will be added here later in an edit, or will be in a new post if someone happens to reply to this before I get around to translating. Or if afstandopleren already translated it.

I'm sorry, but outside of the first 2 minutes of it, that video is pointless (and even the first part seems rather frivolous and trying to avoid the points being made in the actual video it's being taken from). The universe couldn't be designed because there's only 75km^3 habitable space on Earth compared to the size of the planet? That is laughable. The entire point of the ID video is the scarcity of advanced life in the universe (that we know of at this time), and that the conditions of our planet would have to be "fine tuned" for any of it to exist AT ALL. Your video then goes on to say that "well, if the universe is so fine tuned, why isn't there more life?" Please correct me if I'm understanding what he's saying wrongly, because I'm actually finding it hard to believe that someone with such an arrogant, elitist video series name could be so idiotic.

The couple minutes spent on the completely irrelevant, unscientific topic of scientists vs. lawyers didn't make him look good, either.

 

[Ka$h Money]

I don't like british people... X_x They all lie...

 

[Fridge]

I guess that Intelligent desgin is not a solid proof that God DOES exist, but on the other hand it is one thing that helps me to believe in him. (Me being a religious Jew.)

I think that there must be some hgiher being out there, and it is quite difficult to accept that the world and all its wonders were created by accident. However, I wouldnt say that this is solid proof. I think that there will never be any solid proof, but certain things help or disuade you from certain beliefs.

I was trying to be as unbiased as possibel when saying that

My main belief is that science and God do not have to oppose each other, but they both played their role. Science was God's means of creation. I dont think that anyone can ever proove or disprove God's existence though, I guess thats something we may never know D: