An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious...?

[KCfromNC]

ID doesn't say one way or the other.

The Discovery Institute disagrees. Why shouldn't we believe them?

 

[Speedwell]

ID doesn't say one way or the other. That is an assumption which you prefer to make in order to place ID in the religious framework so you can tag it as an appeal to magic.

It is a reasonable assumption, given that ID is the creature of militant Calvinists who developed it as a Trojan Horse to sneak biblical creationism into the public schools. The only "magic" is see there is the magical thinking they indulge themselves in about the Bible.

 

[Michael]

You don't seem to know what they mean by it.

You just made my point.

For example, plant intelligence, microbial intelligence, bacterial social IQ, swarm intelligence, etc.

How does that change anything? All you're doing is citing *other* instances where intelligence manifests itself *without a brain*.

 

[Michael]

The obvious answer is that the intelligence they are talking about doesn't require a brain.

So what chemical reaction is giving rise to it?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How does that change anything? All you're doing is citing *other* instances where intelligence manifests itself *without a brain*.

Exactly. Examples that show a brain isn't necessary for behaviour to be described as 'intelligent'. Having a brain enables a qualitatively different kind (level) of intelligence.

 

[Michael]

Exactly. Examples that show a brain isn't necessary for behaviour to be described as 'intelligent'. Having a brain enables a qualitatively different kind (level) of intelligence.

And yet the organisms seems to be quite "aware" of their environment, and they are able to act "intelligently" to it, all without the benefit of a brain/central nervous system.

Whatever awareness and intelligence might be, they aren't limited to a 'brain'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And yet the organisms seems to be quite "aware" of their environment, and they are able to act "intelligently" to it, all without the benefit of a brain/central nervous system.

Whatever awareness and intelligence might be, they aren't limited to a 'brain'.

As I have said (repeatedly), awareness and intelligence have a range of meanings and usages, so this shouldn't be a surprise - as long as you don't confuse or equivocate those usages. Awareness as simple responsiveness to the environment is very different from conscious awareness. The intelligence of bacterial quorum sensing is very different from the intelligence of a planning brain.

 

[Michael]

As I have said (repeatedly), awareness and intelligence have a range of meanings and usages, so this shouldn't be a surprise - as long as you don't confuse or equivocate those usages. Awareness as simple responsiveness to the environment is very different from conscious awareness. The intelligence of bacterial quorum sensing is very different from the intelligence of a planning brain.

Whether it's "different" or not, it does suggest that whatever awareness and intelligence might be, it's capable of expressing itself within a single cell, and without the benefit of a brain.

That's quite a nifty trick for a series of simple chemical reactions. How do you know that awareness and intelligence aren't "quantum" in nature?

 

[Radrook]

It is a reasonable assumption, given that ID is the creature of militant Calvinists who developed it as a Trojan Horse to sneak biblical creationism into the public schools. The only "magic" is see there is the magical thinking they indulge themselves in about the Bible.

A concept has to be evaluated on its own merits and not on personalities or on a strong aversion to anything or everything indicating an intelligent designer.

 

[Speedwell]

A concept has to be evaluated on its own merits and not on personalities or on a pathological aversion or anything that might indicate an intelligent designer to religion as you as many attemp to do.

The idea has been evaluated and found to be of no merit. It has never risen above its original purpose to be a cover for biblical creationism. Your attempts to make the discussion about atheism have also failed.

 

[Radrook]

The idea has been evaluated and found to be of no merit. It has never risen above its original purpose to be a cover for biblical creationism. Your attempts to make the discussion about atheism have also failed.

I have never attempted to discuss atheism because to me it is too ridiculously illogical a concept to seriously discuss. What I have attempted to discuss is intelligent design from the intelligent design perspective. Whereupon atheists converged on the subject and I responded to what I consider inanities in a rational manner. As for your evaluations, to me they are really of no consequence as are all other evaluations which are totally devoid of logical merit.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Whether it's "different" or not, it does suggest that whatever awareness and intelligence might be, it's capable of expressing itself within a single cell, and without the benefit of a brain.

Awareness & intelligence mean different things, depending on context and usage. There's no single 'it'.

That's quite a nifty trick for a series of simple chemical reactions.

You'd be surprised what simple chemical reactions can do.

How do you know that awareness and intelligence aren't "quantum" in nature?

Everything material is 'quantum' in nature. But intelligence and awareness are general descriptions we have for various kinds of behaviour. Does it make sense to ask if enthusiasm is 'quantum' in nature?

 

[Michael]

As I have said (repeatedly), awareness and intelligence have a range of meanings and usages, so this shouldn't be a surprise - as long as you don't confuse or equivocate those usages.

I'm not. I'm simply using the terms in a generic sense, and using the term 'intelligence' as it's used to describe slime mold "behaviors".

Awareness as simple responsiveness to the environment is very different from conscious awareness.

Even a *rudimentary* sense of awareness of the environment, and the ability to "intelligently" respond to it, is an amazing feat for a single celled organism without a brain. That's all I'm noting.

The intelligence of bacterial quorum sensing is very different from the intelligence of a planning brain.

The slime mold is however able to "predict" future cold cycles, and "plan" accordingly, and even adapt it's behavior to different cycles, and/or no cycles. That's the interesting aspect IMO.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Even a *rudimentary* sense of awareness of the environment, and the ability to "intelligently" respond to it, is an amazing feat for a single celled organism without a brain.

Yes, life is amazing. Responsiveness is a fundamental requirement of life. Some responses are more complex or sophisticated than others.

The slime mold is however able to "predict" future cold cycles, and "plan" accordingly, and even adapt it's behavior to different cycles, and/or no cycles. That's the interesting aspect IMO.

They are being studied - some interesting discoveries already made, some still in progress. These guys developed a model involving multiple chemical oscillators that could reproduce the movement and periodicity-learning abilities of slime-moulds.

 

[Michael]

Yes, life is amazing. Responsiveness is a fundamental requirement of life. Some responses are more complex or sophisticated than others.

They are being studied - some interesting discoveries already made, some still in progress. These guys developed a model involving multiple chemical oscillators that could reproduce the movement and periodicity-learning abilities of slime-moulds.

You're a wealth of useful information as it relates to biology. Thanks again for the links.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You're a wealth of useful information as it relates to biology. Thanks again for the links.

You're welcome. Google is useful.

 

[pat34lee]

I'm sure I could think of more improvements, were I to give it the time. The fact is - we're a terrible design, with everything smacking not of "good" but "good enough".

And for every 'improvement' you would have to make several sacrifices, lowering the total survivability of the person or animal you 'upgrade'. And don't forget, humans today aren't the Rolls Royces of creation. We are Ford Pintos and Chevy Vegas which have been degenerating for four thousand years.

 

[pat34lee]

It is a reasonable assumption, given that ID is the creature of militant Calvinists who developed it as a Trojan Horse to sneak biblical creationism into the public schools. The only "magic" is see there is the magical thinking they indulge themselves in about the Bible.

The wonder of life is that evolutionists say that God is supernatural, therefore outside science, yet they call for a big bang, which is something from nothing, without even God to create it, and reversal of all scientific laws in order to create the universe, stars, planets and life before anything approaching 'natural' appears in their theories.

 

[Speedwell]

The wonder of life is that evolutionists say that God is supernatural, therefore outside science, yet they call for a big bang, which is something from nothing, without even God to create it, and reversal of all scientific laws in order to create the universe, stars, planets and life before anything approaching 'natural' appears in their theories.

The Big Bang, which is admittedly not well understood, is nevertheless expected to have fully obeyed the applicable natural laws and so no "reversal" of them need be contemplated. In any case, no scientist pretends to know what came before the Big Bang, whether nothing or something, and only "evolutionists" who are also atheists don't believe that God created it.

 

[Michael]

You're welcome. Google is useful.

I'm still working my way through your links, but I wasn't really all that impressed with the first link. This statement in particular seems silly to me:

If your theoretical ideas are refuted by experiments, don’t worry, be happy, you only have to change your theory in order to escape current evidence.

What exactly does he think happened to SUSY theory over the past decade, or big bang theory over the past few decades? When the mainstream's 'prediction' of a 'slowing' universe failed to match observation, they simply added "dark energy" and continued on their merry way. Changing a theory based on future observations is *SOP* for pretty much all theories.

I also found his continuous comparisons to homeopathy and numerology to be insulting. He may not like the ideas presented, but they are making "predictions' with their theory, and they are in fact "updating" it based on future findings. That seems pretty reasonable from my perspective. Even the author admits that QM concepts in biology are a "hot topic" these days. I think it's *way* premature to write off a theory like this simply because you don't like it, or because it's been modified over time. By that logic, BB theory should have simply been discarded once SN1A data came in.