We have been critical of darwinism here, today, in particular, but the ‘dialectic’ here swings between atrocious darwinism and atrocious ID. The critique of darwinism is robust, but then we confront the equal limits of ID. The sense of design, for sure, is very strong in biological systems, but at some point we have to say, so what? that’s what nature does and it isn’t god. The conclusion is not theistic. The term ‘intelligent design’ is fascinating but it cannot refer to ‘god’. So what does it refer to? An intelligent process in nature. Be my guest. Prove it and I will convert to the cult of Gaia, the earth goddess. Oops, religion and ID, again.
We come to a typical Kantian impasse, both sides are wrong. Something antinomial is undermining two sides to a ‘dialectic’ in a Kantian sense.
The ID people, as in this article, accuse darwinists of dishonesty. But the ID group is equally dishonest. I have pointed out multiple times the ‘design’ in world history called the ‘eonic effect’ but because they must uphold of the lies of the Old Testament they must suppress my work. All the censorship they denounce in darwinists they apply to an argument like mine, save that, like darwinists they can’t mention such as I, canceled twice over by two sets of opposed madmen. The Old Testament shows the ‘design’ designed by Yahweh, and it is a far worse lie than that of the darwinists, who, after all, are basically just hopeless idiots at statistics, a common failing, perhaps. But the old testament Yahweh is a ferocious devil, making his adherents devil worshipers? I go too far, but the eonic effect shows a real meaning of historical ‘design’ and it is not a biblical fairy tale.
The evolution issue is a strange contretemps, two sides equally muddled, both lying, both with agendas, the ID gang plying yahwistic jihad, the darwin boys plying social darwinist elimination of thy neighbor, survival of the fittest capitalist/idiot…
ID has to be taken seriously, step one, but at step two problems arise: is the elephant’s trunk the result of intelligent design? My poor brain, surviving on junk food and coffee, may not be up to that one… This is one of those test cases, where the outcome could go either way. Perhaps the ‘designer’ had a sense of humor, plays jokes on evolutionary strugglers, then again such a long nose must have some survival of the fittest angle. I can’t figure it out, no biologist I.
Nevertheless I welcome ID-ers to consider a new version of ‘design’ in history, and then consider the meaning of ‘intelligent’ applied to world history’s seminal evolutionary bursts. One ironic problem is that the process is more than intelligent. Intelligent is only a step beyond stupid. And very intellignet people often see their limits But a step beyond intelligent ceases to make sense, at least to stupids like us. Beyond a certain point, ‘superintelligent’ ceases to refer to a mind/brain, and must refer to some new category, e.g. a computer analog that a smart person needs that isn’t alive, or conscious, but computes that problem beyond an intelligent stupido trying to do the math.
Please note that intelligent people move to use dumb intelligent machines as their ‘smarts’ comes to its limit. That fact makes ID arguments suspicious. Intelligent doesn’t apply in the same way to a smart computer: it is not an ID argument. The universe could be bootstrapping artificially intelligent learning machines in the wake of the Big Bang, thence onto evolution. Who knows.
I have that funny feeling about design in history. That computer in the background is beyond intelligent, a property of various types of mere apes, some ‘intelligent’.
And with the eonic effect the math is stunning: what can scan whole continents, store the history of a whole civilization, gestate arts, literature, philosophies, whole religions, sciences…?
So the term ‘intelligent’ applied to a Yahweh to produce elephant trunks doesn’t work as science or ID, and anyway I have a bad feeling about all that: I think Einstein was a lot smarter than Yahweh, who comes off as a sort of rogue giant with an IQ of 90.
The question of design in evolution isn’t really helped by the term ‘intelligent’. Intelligent people aren’t smart enough to do evolution, I wager: some new process or concept comes into play.
Whatever the case neither side here has resolved the evolution mystery. It’s bad case ‘too primitive’ cave men on both sides of the argument.
Enough rubbish on this question, end of post. But I still insist on de-cancellation on both sides here, two horrible dialectical meanies trying vainly to do either the religion of science, or the science of religion cancelling double reverse skeptics (double reverse as in the play in football).