Intelligent Design in the Universe

by metatron 19 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  metatron

  This will be complicated ( if you think any Watchtower study article is 'deep',
  give up now)

  So, according to popular images, God sits on a throne. He has blueprints in his
  hands for every living creature. He programmed the genetic code that determines the
  form of every creature.

  Now, what about siamese twins?

  Possibly, most of these unfortunates die in the womb. However, consider the amazing
  marvel of ADAPTATION that emerges in those who live! In some, a torso is shared- or
  a cranium. What genetic blueprint guided the exact placement of each needed blood
  vessel? or nerve connection? Perhaps a kidney or liver or circulatory system is shared.

  What amazing intelligence guided this process - to create a functional, living pair?

  AND, if a deterministic, EXACT, genetic blueprint exists for each animal or human,
  IS THERE an exact 'blueprint' for each conjoined pair? One 'blueprint' shares
  a liver? another blueprint shares a heart?

  If we think that God preprogrammed living things in creation, millions of years
  ago, is he NOW 'writing blueprints' for conjoined twins? As they are born? Is this
  the hand of an immanent Creator, involved in every change in the universe? If life
  manifests God as Creator, why not highlight the marvelous intelligent design of
  cancer cells? or leprosy? or HIV?

  Here's a better answer:

  There is no strict blueprint for living things - no, NOT EVEN GENES! If you think this
  is outrageous, consider the headlines that emerged after the first summary
  of the human genome emerged - "Not a blueprint". Scientists refered to it as
  "guideposts".

  Life is an adaptive program written to 'run on the hardware' of the universe.
  What we think of as design or intelligence is distributed thruout the cosmos,
  down to include even subatomic particles.

  If we ask 'why does life exist - with all its properties and complexity'?
  We might as well ask 'why do electrons or protons or atoms exist'?
  it's really just a matter of levels of order.
  Why are the laws of physics the same all over the universe?
  What keeps them that way?

  Why do we keep arguing about a lazy, deistic Creator, who programmed everything
  millions of years ago - and then retired???

  Why not think of the universe itself as an ACTIVE 'Creator', with distributed
  intelligence and order, as especially shown by adaptive life? Stop looking
  for an ANTHROMORPHIC Guy on a throne barking orders to Angels -
  AND start considering that design and adaptive intellect are everywhere in the
  cosmos, at once - creating new things and maintaining the old.

  Why does this argument - evolution vs creation - keep coming up WITHOUT
  A WISE SYNTHESIS (remember Hegel and Marx) OF OPPOSITES?

  If proponents of Intelligent Design are sincere - and not crypto creationists-
  they could greatly benefit human progress by offering a new vision of how
  Everything Works.

  Having said this about creationists, I note that the Achilles heel of
  some skeptics will be found in their acceptance of arbitrary properties
  for the universe. If the laws of the universe "just are", you are admitting
  that they can't be reduced. In my opinion, this nearly falls in the category
  of MAGIC! (like it or not!). Once your criticism creates a "god of the gaps"
  image, don't lament that the "just is" properties of the universe, justify
  'His' existence.

  You may flame me freely, now!

  metatron
• 

  mustang

  Metro-one:

  It IS time some of what wrote is both said and considered.

  A couple of similar themes:

  Posited in a Sci-Fi story I once read was the question: If you set AUTOMATIC LATHES to making AUTOMATIC LATHES, how many generations will go by before they can't "reproduce"? The theme of the story was closer to having the "replicators" from Star Trek make more "replicators", but the question was asked about lathes. This gets into the controversial and mythical "tolerance stackup" of Engineering disciplines.

  One theory of the Gnostics proposes a "Crazy God". The "Crazy God" is only concerned with "production", as if he has a quota. You know, he's paid by the "piece". The "Crazy God" is only concerned with creating SOMETHING; if it is weird, doesn't make sense or is malevolent, so what!!! He doesn't go back, just on to the next thing to be created.

  Is it planned? Unknown, and maybe planning is not needed; just meet the quota and 'keep on truckin'!!! He made the mosquito, but he is not going to un-make it.

  Mustang
• 

  Zechariah

  Metatron,

  You have implied that the existence of genetic defects contradicts intelligent design. This is an absurd notion. You insinuate that siamese twins is an example how adaptive changes occur. Your implication ignores the fact that such defects are not regarded as beneficial and never will be. No more than having two heads or three eyes. If the were regarded as beneficial there would never be the intent to seperate them. You do not honor the freewill God gives man and the responsibility man has live his life in a way defects are minimized or ways are devisd to remediate the problems when they occur.

  Your obvious anger and intent to demean the creator is greatly apparent. You want to deny him credit as creator by implying very matter of factly that intelligent design does not need a creator but just is.

  Why do we argue about a lazy deistic Creator who programmed everything millions of years ago and ten retired.

  Your abandoned child issues are really apparent here as you lash out against God with your name calling.

  Something here was made apparent in a recent post by know_you where he mentioned he was in awe on his vacation of the natural wonders he observed. It has struck me as being true that unbelievers in God must have a very difficult time in appreciate works of art of any type. This whether those works of God are God made or man made. If intelligent design is not responsible for natures wonders then how much can we appreciate or be in awe of them or the one who created them.

  Your attitude against God is the only thing that prevents you from having a relationship with him.

  You are trying to create some kind of midground alternative to the creation/evoluttion debate that doesn't exist. Either we are the product of intelligent design or we are not.

  Zechariah
• 

  metatron

  You need to read my post all over again. It is plain you haven't understood it.

  It isn't about anger or whatever, It's about observing the world and reasoning
  about an explanation for all of it.

  Genetic defects contradict intelligent design? Why? I'm impressed by the adaptive
  miracle that takes place here. Nature's power to design can be manifest 'on the spot'
  as it were, rather than preplanned aeons ago.

  Too many creationist types are obsessed with the wrong analogy. We reason that brains
  similar to ours are the only way to create things. We are weak 'serial processors'
  at best, far outshadowed by the fantastic power of living bodies, that can 'parallel
  process' huge amounts of data at once.

  While I fight with this keyboard,one key at a time, thousands of automatic systems in my body are
  adjusting body temperature, hormone levels, fluid balance, etc, - all WITHOUT
  MY CONSCIOUS INTERVENTION. Looking at this reality, why should I reason that
  'God' is like me, with a brain like mine, when I can REASON THAT 'HE' is more
  likely to be like the FAR SUPERIOR SYSTEM of distributed intelligence that
  orders my body - and yours!

  metatron
• 

  BluesBrother

  No flames Metatron, I enjoyed your reasoning.

  But the amazing ability of Siamese twins to survive and adapt does not mean that God created or designed them that way. The dubs would just say "That is imperfection" . I have never considered that all creatures were painstakingly blue printed ,rather that the designed species have a level of adaptation to circumstances , and this may be mistaken for evolution. In fact the strength of the "design" of the human being is that even such twins may survive.

  I am sure the idea that "God is in everything" is not new. But it does not satisfy the simple logic that the wonder of this world points to a grand designer .Just my thoughts
• 

  Francois

  I liked your post; I think you brought up some very interesting point, some that I've made myself - especially wonderment about the lack of a syncretistic effort of those "in the know." (And like you, I think Zechariah attempts to put words in your mouth and then argue with them.)

  One thing you said I do disagree with: "Why are the laws of physics the same all over the universe?
  What keeps them that way?" We don't really know that the laws of physics are the same all over the universe. We presume they are, but we have not proved it.

  What do you think would be the result of our discovering that there are other elements than the ones we know of, and that one of them resonates at the same frequency as hydrogen and thus, of course, shows up at the same spot in the emission spectrum as hydrogen? What would that do to our concept of red-shift? The ripples from that one discovery knocks into a cocked hat one of our favorite conceits and would likely expand from here to the moon and back.

  My two cents.

  francois
• 

  metatron

  I eagerly anticipate a revolution in science that will radically challenge some
  of our most basic assumptions about reality.

  Genetics is one of these. Think about the implications of a genome that doesn't
  contain a specific 'blueprint'. Astoundingly complex forms, like organs or limbs
  would have to produced in every human or animal embryo, everytime, without an
  exact plan of how to do it! Compare this mentally with building a nuclear sub
  or skyscraper with just a sketch of what it should look like.

  What I'm doing here is taking simple, observable facts and looking at them as
  any reductionist skeptic should - and, in some cases, the effort to reduce
  things to simple causes looks impossible. Thus, if you WANT TO BRING GOD
  into the process here, I say forget about Genesis and What Happened Ages Ago
  at creation - and concern yourself with a 'Creator' WHO IS ACTIVE RIGHT NOW,
  EVERYWHERE.

  Considering the nature of the 'unplanned' creature, I opt for a very
  different sort of 'Creator'.

  Added to this, we have the testimony of the editor of Red Herring magazine
  last year, who lamented the almost complete failure of billions invested
  in creating artificial intelligence. They failed to 'reduce' mind down to
  rules they could reproduce in the lab.

  This, alone, should make us wonder and speculate as to what kinds of intelligence
  could exist - outside of our mental 'rules' for what a mind has to be.

  metatron
• 

  gumby

  Heres a dilema for you on the humorous side.

  Two people joined at the hip....each have their own heads. They both become dubs and later on....one of them turns Apostate.............Damn!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• 

  Realist

  metatron,

  sounds like pantheism to me! did you read Spinoza? einstein as pantheist loved his reasoning.

  about the siamese twins...this is not in the genetic code...it occurs early in development. the fertilized egg cell starts to divide. sometimes the embryo divides in 2--> normal twins...however if the embryo only partially devides you get siamese twins. this has nothing to do with adaption ...its rather an accident...like loosing a limb in an accident.

  Francois,

  red shift affects all the spectral lines...not just that of hydrogen...so it would require a more complex explanation!
• 

  JanH

  metratron,

  Yes to compare the genetic code to a 'blueprint' is a flawed analogy. It makes people think that we have "a gene for" everything, as if there was a mapping of single genes to every feature in our body and mind. It is not that simple.

  The genome is not a blueprint, but more like a cooking receipe. This is Richard Dawkins' analogy, and it is much better. The genes guide the complex biochemical processes that end up creating a phenotype, be it a bacteria, a tree or a human being.

  - Jan

  ---

  Blogging at Secular Blasphemy