Design Through Evolution

[MindOverMatter]

Physical reality cannot ultimately account for why there are such things as emotions or the laws of chemistry or the laws of physics for that matter. Evolution cannot explain why so many useful qualities emerge that evidently work toward the bennefit of “life” and move toward meaningful ends. Evolution can only describe the processes that led to the actuality of a particulor quality. However; one could argue that evolution also produces alot of waste, which is correct, but that is to be expected in a system designed to evolve naturally. This still doesn’t explain the many meaningful and positve qualities that we do percieve. In fact evolution only works because of the over abundence of positive, meaningfull, and life sustaining qualities that do emerge, such as defence mechanisms, immune systems ect.

If we want to honestly explain the laws of chemistry or physics (without which there is no evolution) as a whole, we must transcend physical reality altogether and postulate the neccesary existence of a “transcendent hirachical inteligent cause”.

Does anybody wish to argue against this?
I hope you do not love your atheism, because its is my mission to destroy it.

 

[Detales]

I’m sure the atheists are shaking in their boots!

What is your “transcendent hirachical inteligent cause” and what does that mean relative to your direct experience? What is your fundamental irriducible premise?

 

[tonyrey]

I’m sure the atheists are shaking in their boots!

What is your “transcendent hierarchical intelligent cause” and what does that mean relative to your direct experience? What is your fundamental irreducible premise?

We all have direct experience of a transcendent intelligent agent. How would you explain that? Or do you deny that we are transcendent intelligent agents by virtue of our free will?

 

[Detales]

Tonyrey, thanks for your reply.

I was wondering your meaning because “transcendent hierarchical intelligent cause” is a string of words that in my experience. If each of those words are limited to even two possible meanings, the phrase itself has at least 16 interpretations. I was just asking for clarity.

“Transcendent,” for instance, has at least four adjectival dictionary meanings with sub definitions and mathematical definition as well. The word also has a variety of experiential meanings somewhat overlapping the dictionary definitions. Multiply that into the elements of such an unusual phrase as we are dealing with, and you might forgive my wish for greater precision?

Yes, I do believe that essentially we are transcendent. I also see that some folks think that because the word fits their book learning, and some know it is so through mystical experience. That where my question is actually centered. Is that phrase a result of describing an experienced state, is it something that works a intellectual description of book knowledge, or what? To me there is a vital difference.

BD

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, I do believe that essentially we are transcendent. I also see that some folks think that because the word fits their book learning, and some know it is so through mystical experience. That where my question is actually centered. Is that phrase a result of describing an experienced state, is it something that works a intellectual description of book knowledge, or what? To me there is a vital difference.

I was thinking particularly of transcendence with regard to our free will which enables us to control ourselves and physical objects. We have direct experience of that but I certainly don’t exclude mystical and spiritual experiences. It would be odd for a theist to do so…

 

[MindOverMatter]

I’m sure the atheists are shaking in their boots!

They should be.

What is your “transcendent hierarchical inteligent cause”

Its exactly as i explained it. Transcendent, as in, an entity that is of a higher/superior state of being then physical objects. Hierarchical, in regards to its causal significance as being the cause of time and space, rather then a cause that is subject to time and space. Intelligent, because an inert mindless object cannot move itself from a state of complete and positive-nothingness, and neither can it create particular laws governing particular qualities in regards to particular events and structures in time; thus, the necessary conclusion that the universe is a product of willful intention, rather then chance or random events.

 

[Benadam]

JPII said, and this isn’t an exact quote,* for a state of life to elevate a state of life above it must reach down and lift it up. *

I’ve thought of that concept as containing a secret to understanding the evolution as a means that life transcends it’self.

 

[tonyrey]

JPII said, and this isn’t an exact quote,* for a state of life to elevate a state of life above it must reach down and lift it up. *

I’ve thought of that concept as containing a secret to understanding the evolution as a means that life transcends itself.

In other words, the highest aspects of life cannot have developed from the lowest: persons cannot be explained in terms of particles…

 

[Benadam]

In other words, the highest aspects of life cannot have developed from the lowest: persons cannot be explained in terms of particles…

 

[wanstronian]

Physical reality cannot ultimately account for why there are such things as emotions or the laws of chemistry or the laws of physics for that matter. Physical reality cannot account for the laws of physics?

Evolution cannot explain why so many useful qualities emerge that evidently work toward the bennefit of “life” and move toward meaningful ends.

Of course it can. Such qualities - in fact, all evolutionary changes - manifest themselves as mutations and, when shown to have a benefit, propagate themselves. Simple, elegant, observable, logical.

Evolution can only describe the processes that led to the actuality of a particulor quality.

Wrong; I hope your mission to destroy atheism is not built on this foundation!

However; one could argue that evolution also produces alot of waste, which is correct, but that is to be expected in a system designed to evolve naturally. This still doesn’t explain the many meaningful and positve qualities that we do percieve.

Such as?

In fact evolution only works because of the over abundence of positive, meaningfull, and life sustaining qualities that do emerge, such as defence mechanisms, immune systems ect.

I think ‘sufficient amounts’ rather than ‘over abundance’ is probably more accurate.

If we want to honestly explain the laws of chemistry or physics (without which there is no evolution) as a whole, we must transcend physical reality altogether and postulate the neccesary existence of a “transcendent hirachical inteligent cause”.

Must we really? Because of your potted logic above?

Does anybody wish to argue against this?

Me, I guess.

I hope you do not love your atheism, because its is my mission to destroy it.

I think your only hope is to produce some evidence. Good luck with that.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Physical reality cannot account for the laws of physics?

Well, it is quite simple. If one wishes to explain the existence of the laws of physical reality, one cannot look to physical laws for an explanation, since this is what you are trying to explain. Thus, any cause of such laws is necessarily transcendent of physical reality and physical law.
wanstronian;5464066:

Of course it can. Such qualities - in fact, all evolutionary changes - manifest themselves as mutations and, when shown to have a benefit, propagate themselves.

That there are mutations does not sufficiently explain why there is such a thing as any particular quality and why that particular quality occurs in regards to a particular mutation. Evolution only describes the fact that when B happens C follows.

Simple, elegant, observable, logical.

Well, as a naturalist, you only have two options, you can either believe that the world along with the laws of physics, including your so called logic, popped out of nothing for no reason; or you can believe that our universe has transcended and traversed and infinite number (that means all numbers) of events, cycles or big-bangs for no reason.
If i have to tell you why both these explanations are irrational, and why it is silly to think that these two non-possibilities are more reasonable then the existence of a timeless, perfect and transcendent will, then you are not suppose to be doing philosophy.

Wrong; I hope your mission to destroy atheism is not built on this foundation!

All rational grounds for naturalism/atheism were destroyed centuries ago. Atheists just refuse to realize it.

Such as?I think ‘sufficient amounts’ rather than ‘over abundance’ is probably more accurate.

You think evolution would be as successful as it is if there wasn’t an overabundance of meaningful and working systems? The idea that these events are just arbitrary is ridiculous. Even if we go along with your “sufficient amounts”, this doesn’t explain were all the useful information came from. There is evidently objective meaningful functional information, such as go up, go down, turn right, turn left, feed, attack, feel fear; and all of this is being obtained from mutations and supposedly didn’t exist before organisms existed. So where does all this meaningful information come from in the first place? This is what I’m talking about when i speak about the particularities of chemistry. I am talking about irreducibly complex information that cannot be reduced to physical systems; but can only be associated with particular systems or objects in space time. What has decided that when an eye is connected to the brain that it should perceive information and that such a perception would eventually be received by a mind? This isn’t some arbitrary truth that can be explained by evolution. Such things prompt the question of what lies at the root of information/laws/truth/logic; what is the basis of reality. Is it really a coincidence that a species in a given environment will eventually develop the necessary tools in order to survive in that particular environment? It is not enough to say natural selection. These mutations seem amazingly efficient at finding new ways of making biological systems better in respect of survival and life. Much of the information actualized in Biology is evidently compelled to purposeful and meaningful ends.

This is what i mean by design through evolution.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Well, as a naturalist, you only have two options, you can either believe that the world along with the laws of physics, including your so called logic, popped out of nothing for no reason; or you can believe that our universe has transcended and traversed and infinite number (that means all numbers) of events, cycles or big-bangs for no reason.
If i have to tell you why both these explanations are irrational, and why it is silly to think that these two non-possibilities are more reasonable then the existence of a timeless, perfect and transcendent will, then you are not suppose to be doing philosophy.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR…

Like any intellectually honest person. You could accept that at this point in time we do not have sufficient evidence to form any sort of hypothesis regarding the origin if the universe.

Your argument basically boils down to, “we don’t understand what can cause this, therefore magic man must have done it”.

Did you know rainbows used to be put forth as evidence for intelligent design.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

You think evolution would be as successful as it is if there wasn’t an overabundance of meaningful and working systems? The idea that these events are just arbitrary is ridiculous. Even if we go along with your “sufficient amounts”, this doesn’t explain were all the useful information came from. There is evidently objective meaningful functional information, such as go up, go down, turn right, turn left, feed, attack, feel fear; and all of this is being obtained from mutations and supposedly didn’t exist before organisms existed. So where does all this meaningful information come from in the first place? This is what I’m talking about when i speak about the particularities of chemistry. I am talking about irreducibly complex information that cannot be reduced to physical systems; but can only be associated with particular systems or objects in space time. What has decided that when an eye is connected to the brain that it should perceive information and that such a perception would eventually be received by a mind? This isn’t some arbitrary truth that can be explained by evolution. Such things prompt the question of what lies at the root of information/laws/truth/logic; what is the basis of reality. Is it really a coincidence that a species in a given environment will eventually develop the necessary tools in order to survive in that particular environment? It is not enough to say natural selection. These mutations seem amazingly efficient at finding new ways of making biological systems better in respect of survival and life. Much of the information actualized in Biology is evidently compelled to purposeful and meaningful ends.

This is what i mean by design through evolution.

Me thinks someone here needs to attend biology 101.

 

[reggieM]

I am talking about irreducibly complex information that cannot be reduced to physical systems; but can only be associated with particular systems or objects in space time. What has decided that when an eye is connected to the brain that it should perceive information and that such a perception would eventually be received by a mind? This isn’t some arbitrary truth that can be explained by evolution.

That is correct. Evolutionary theory would not predict the purposefulness that we find everywhere in nature. Since evolution is claimed to be blind, unintelligent, unconscious and undirected towards any goals – the fact that we find goals and purposes is a problem. Beyond that, we find organisms like eyes (supposedly evolving completely independently in non-ancestral forms) which have to work together with the meta-data of the brain which processes the images gathered by sight. These then are retained in memory and even used as the basis for imagination. The harmony and symmetry found in nature, the rationality of the universe, the immaterial quality of consciousness – these things cannot be explained by accidental, chance causes, or even by natural selection – which would not result in a harmonious balance of nature but rather a war of competition and struggle for survival with eventually fewer and fewer organisms surviving, and those being the most universally adapted (giant cockroaches).

 

[Benadam]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR…

Like any intellectually honest person. You could accept that at this point in time we do not have sufficient evidence to form any sort of hypothesis regarding the origin if the universe.

 

[wanstronian]

Well, it is quite simple. If one wishes to explain the existence of the laws of physical reality, one cannot look to physical laws for an explanation, since this is what you are trying to explain. Thus, any cause of such laws is necessarily transcendent of physical reality and physical law.

Ah, I see. What you meant to say was, “The presence of a reality bound by the laws of physics does not explain how those laws came into being.” I think this is a question that doesn’t need an answer - the universe doesn’t need a purpose unless you are trying to hang the existence of a supernatural creator from it. In effect, you are creating a question to add weight to your belief in God.

That there are mutations does not sufficiently explain why there is such a thing as any particular quality and why that particular quality occurs in regards to a particular mutation. Evolution only describes the fact that when B

happens C follows. And it explains how, when such random mutations occur, the benefit to the organism allows the mutation to establish itself as the norm. Again, if you’re looking for some metaphysical, supernatural “Why”, then this is a question that only needs answering if you are trying to ascribe a deeper purpose to the universe. In which case you can postulate any answer you want, without that answer having any weight of truth.

Well, as a naturalist, you only have two options, you can either believe that the world along with the laws of physics, including your so called logic, popped out of nothing for no reason; or you can believe that our universe has transcended and traversed and infinite number (that means all numbers) of events, cycles or big-bangs for no reason.

If i have to tell you why both these explanations are irrational, and why it is silly to think that these two non-possibilities are more reasonable then the existence of a timeless, perfect and transcendent will, then you are not suppose to be doing philosophy.

Well I’m afraid you do need to tell me why these explanations are irrational. Please proceed. I’ll even overlook the fact you have no evidence - just persuade me with logic.

All rational grounds for naturalism/atheism were destroyed centuries ago. Atheists just refuse to realize it.

Now there’s an ironic statement!

You think evolution would be as successful as it is if there wasn’t an overabundance of meaningful and working systems? The idea that these events are just arbitrary is ridiculous.

Why?

Even if we go along with your “sufficient amounts”, this doesn’t explain were all the useful information came from. There is evidently objective meaningful functional information, such as go up, go down, turn right, turn left, feed, attack, feel fear; and all of this is being obtained from mutations and supposedly didn’t exist before organisms existed. So where does all this meaningful information come from in the first place? This is what I’m talking about when i speak about the particularities of chemistry. I am talking about irreducibly complex information that cannot be reduced to physical systems; but can only be associated with particular systems or objects in space time. What has decided that when an eye is connected to the brain that it should perceive information and that such a perception would eventually be received by a mind?

Nothing has decided it - that’s the point. It’s evolution, not design.

This isn’t some arbitrary truth that can be explained by evolution.

Although it has been, you just choose to ignore the consequences.

Such things prompt the question of what lies at the root of information/laws/truth/logic; what is the basis of reality. Is it really a coincidence that a species in a given environment will eventually develop the necessary tools in order to survive in that particular environment?

Well, yes. That’s what evolution is.

It is not enough to say natural selection. These mutations seem amazingly efficient at finding new ways of making biological systems better in respect of survival and life. Much of the information actualized in Biology is evidently compelled to purposeful and meaningful ends.

Yes - the propagation of the species. I don’t see what you find so difficult to understand.

This is what i mean by design through evolution.

I think the problem is mainly that you can’t perceive that your life may not be serving some higher purpose. I’m not sure whether this arrogance or insecurity.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

**That is correct. **

Nope

Evolutionary theory would not predict the purposefulness that we find everywhere in nature. Since evolution is claimed to be blind, unintelligent, unconscious and undirected towards any goals – the fact that we find goals and purposes is a problem.

Wrong again, evolution is driven by natural selection. This is anything but blind.

**Beyond that, we find organisms like eyes (supposedly evolving completely independently in non-ancestral forms) which have to work together with the meta-data of the brain which processes the images gathered by sight. **

The evolution of the eye is fully documented and presents no problem for evolution. Its worth noting the eye is an awful design, and any “intelligent desiger” would have to be a complete moron to come up with such a design.

The harmony and symmetry found in nature, the rationality of the universe, the immaterial quality of consciousness – these things cannot be explained by accidental, chance causes, or even by natural selection – which would not result in a harmonious balance of nature but rather a war of competition and struggle for survival with eventually fewer and fewer organisms surviving, and those being the most universally adapted (giant cockroaches).

No idea what your talking about here, but it’s not evolution thats for sure. All a can make out is a lack of understanding of the processes involved in evolution “accidental, chance causes, " cobmined with an ignorace of the link between predator and prey populations " with eventually fewer and fewer organisms surviving”.

 

[Fran65]

What you meant to say was, “The presence of a reality bound by the laws of physics does not explain how those laws came into being.” I think this is a question that doesn’t need an answer.

You are not a scientist or even intellectually curious then? Please explain to me why this question doesn’t a need an answer. Or is it that case that you prefer to simply accept the universe as it is as a ‘brute fact’ and leave it at that? How strange.

Yes - the propagation of the species.

The question is why does the species (e.g. man) exist and why does he seek to survive? Or is this another brute fact which we are to accept without question?

I think the problem is mainly that you can’t perceive that your life may not be serving some higher purpose. I’m not sure whether this arrogance or insecurity.

There you go being rude again. Could you conduct this discussion without being so? Thank you.

 

[wanstronian]

You are not a scientist or even intellectually curious then? Please explain to me why this question doesn’t a need an answer. Or is it that case that you prefer to simply accept the universe as it is as a ‘brute fact’ and leave it at that? How strange.

Why do you feel the need to ascribe a higher purpose?

The question is why does the species (e.g. man) exist and why does he seek to survive? Or is this another brute fact which we are to accept without question?

Why do you feel the need to ascribe a higher purpose?

There you go being rude again. Could you conduct this discussion without being so? Thank you.

Far from rude - I’m genuinely mystified why theists should hypothesise a deeper purpose for everything - a purpose of which they are apparently a key component - unless it’s because either they need to feel better about themselves, or they feel that they are somehow special. That’s all. If you’re too sensitive to debate the point, then go away. If your defense is, “you’re being rude” then I rest my case.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

The question is why does the species (e.g. man) exist and why does he seek to survive? Or is this another brute fact which we are to accept without question?

He exists as a product of 4 billion years of evolving, self replicating molecules. He seeks to survive because animals with a survial drive had/have a greater chance of surviving until reproduction.