Intelligent Design is Dead! Long Live the Intelligent Designer!

[barts]

The Theory of Intelligent Design as put forward by organizations like the Discovery Institute is, of course, nonsense.

But, what is not nonsensical, in my view, is the general concept of intelligent design as it might pertain to evolution.

First, there is a potential designer, and that is human beings, and we have demonstrated that we can change the environment, and those environmental changes result in changes in not only non-human species, but also humans as well.

Like it or not, humans are a "cause" of evolution and, at least, at the microbial level the rise of new species. But, can we be an "intelligent cause" that influences evolution in ways that enhance not only human life, but also non-human life?

So far, with the exception of a few domesticated species, parasites, and "disease" and pest organisms, our presence has had, on balance, a negative impact on most life on earth. Because of us, earth is less able to support life than it was before the rise of Homo sapien, and in particular before Homo sapien had acquired the use of energy beyond its own muscles.

Are we sufficiently intelligent to become an "intelligent designer" or the "intelligent cause" that the IDists are futilely searching for?

Personally, I don't think we are for basic Darwinian evolutionary reasons. We tend to make decisions that maximize our immediate personal well-being, as do all species, with little or no regard for longer term consequences or the effects on our and other species as a whole. Indeed, this is the essence of some libertarian thinkers, like Ayn Rand, and American proponents of individual liberty. It is raised to a moral "good" despite the fact that it rejects responsibility for any consequences perpetrated on others. This is pure Darwinian evolution in action.

Darwin's Descent of Man could as aptly be titled the Demise of Man. Intelligence of the human kind, I submit, is not conducive to our species' survival.

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Interesting topic. Ecologists argue that we're in the midst of another mass extinction, but it's primarily our fault. I tend to agree (being one myself). The vast majority of extinctions we've caused and are currently causing is due to habitat destruction.

Will it be our demise? I don't think so. I do think at some point there will be some kind of major event that will severely reduce our population, but I doubt that we'll end up extinct any time soon.

[barts]

Quote by: Uncle Rhynchus Interesting topic. Ecologists argue that we're in the midst of another mass extinction, but it's primarily our fault. I tend to agree (being one myself). The vast majority of extinctions we've caused and are currently causing is due to habitat destruction. Will it be our demise? I don't think so. I do think at some point there will be some kind of major event that will severely reduce our population, but I doubt that we'll end up extinct any time soon.

And, we can always take comfort in the fact that even if we managed to wipe out all the more complex animals including ourselves, life would prevail and evolve.

Some years ago I was working in the Peruvian Altiplano. There the people carried on what amounted to subsistence agriculture. I doubt that there's much we civilized people could do to impact on their lives very much.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: barts Some years ago I was working in the Peruvian Altiplano. There the people carried on what amounted to subsistence agriculture. I doubt that there's much we civilized people could do to impact on their lives very much.

You'd be surprised. We're destroying native cultures at an alarming rate. Once they get electricity and roads it's over; the cultural poison seeps in. I don't know about Peru but in the mountains of Costa Rica they've been introduced to satellite television, and in the valleys they have Walmarts.

YouTube - Rammstein-Amerika

The Islamic cultures will become unstable soon. The internet is eating the heart out of their power structure and I have front row seats. You can't censor the media and you can't keep your women ignorant because of computers. Especially young women.

Look at what happened to China and Japan! We've sped up the rate of cultural extinction and evolution enormously. The end product seems to be less diversity...

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Quote by: barts And, we can always take comfort in the fact that even if we managed to wipe out all the more complex animals including ourselves, life would prevail and evolve.

Agreed.

Some years ago I was working in the Peruvian Altiplano.

Neat! What were you doing there?

There the people carried on what amounted to subsistence agriculture. I doubt that there's much we civilized people could do to impact on their lives very much.

We could contaminate the planet with radioactive isotopes, or we could change the global climate such that their subsistence lifestyle becomes less sustainable.

[barts]

Quote by: Uncle Rhynchus Neat! What were you doing there?

Making a documentary about vicuñas.

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Really? Cool. Are you a filmmaker, biologist, or .....?

[barts]

Quote by: Uncle Rhynchus Really? Cool. Are you a filmmaker, biologist, or .....?

I wear many hats, one is as a filmmaker. My interest in the ecologically-related sciences (conservation biology, natural history, evolutionary theory, etc.) and the moral, philosophical, and political issues they raise stem from making documentaries about wildlife for broadcasters and for wildlife and environmental protection organizations. Working for the latter led to advocacy work. All this goes back to the early 1970s.

[grandpa]

Quote by: barts I wear many hats, one is as a filmmaker. My interest in the ecologically-related sciences (conservation biology, natural history, evolutionary theory, etc.) and the moral, philosophical, and political issues they raise stem from making documentaries about wildlife for broadcasters and for wildlife and environmental protection organizations.

Where can I see one of these? I assume they would be decent, as you apparently don't have too many bats in your belfry. As for the demise of man, you can't very well hold Darwin's theory as being responsible for it in any significant sense. The traits of our demise -- our destructive tendencies -- largely come from our superstitions and related decisions about the world, not from anything I would consider deeply innate. Obviously, if environmentally destructive tendencies were purely innate, no one would be demanding any environmental protections whatsoever.

Grandpa h.

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Yeah, no kidding! Where can we see some of your work?

[Angry Citizen]

Are we sufficiently intelligent to become an "intelligent designer" or the "intelligent cause" that the IDists are futilely searching for?

Not yet, but perhaps soon. We are still in the "plug it in and see what happens" phase of genetic manipulation. Like the alchemists before the 19th century advent of chemistry, geneticists are blind, with no real grasp of why certain genes will do such-and-such thing. Until that time, they are at best tinkerers, not inventors.

Darwin's Descent of Man could as aptly be titled the Demise of Man. Intelligence of the human kind, I submit, is not conducive to our species' survival.

And I'd like to edit in this response to the selected above quote:

I disagree strenuously. I fear this largely tongue-in-cheek statement has become a wildfire, with actual advocates instead of point-makers. The fact that our species has become so prolific and long-lived due to technology is astounding. The moment we colonize other worlds is the day this statement is proven completely and totally false.

[barts]

Quote by: Uncle Rhynchus Yeah, no kidding! Where can we see some of your work?

Well, if I told you that, my secret identity, barts, would be revealed and I'd have to imprison you in my Fortress of LSD, Free Love, and Sixties Music.

However, my next project is a documentary about Sidney Holt. Scientist that you are, UR, should know about Holt and Beverton.

Sidney lives in Paciano. How unfortunate for me that I'll have to go there and spend two weeks interviewing a truly wise man.

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Quote by: barts Well, if I told you that, my secret identity, barts, would be revealed and I'd have to imprison you in my Fortress of LSD, Free Love, and Sixties Music.

As tempting as that sounds, I understand.

However, my next project is a documentary about Sidney Holt. Scientist that you are, UR, should know about Holt and Beverton. Sidney lives in Paciano. How unfortunate for me that I'll have to go there and spend two weeks interviewing a truly wise man.

Awwww....you have my sympathies! Have fun!

[barts]

Quote by: Uncle Rhynchus As tempting as that sounds, I understand. Awwww....you have my sympathies! Have fun!

I'm fortunate to have come across in my too many decades some truly wise people. Sidney Holt is one of them.

[JeffM]

Barts wrote:

Because of us, earth is less able to support life than it was before the rise of Homo sapien, and in particular before Homo sapien had acquired the use of energy beyond its own muscles.

You sure weren't thinking when you strung that one together were you! What a disappointment when I was about to start taking you quite seriously over all your philosophizing banter with Meleagar.

Amusing in that it reflects on Meleagar's argument as well as yours in that Meleagar's most serious audience for his nonsense turns out to be not serious at all! Let me help you to rethink that one: Because of human innovation the earth has come to be capable of supporting over 6 billion human beings and will become capable of supporting even more through future innovations. Albeit, not in the style to which we are both accustomed.

[barts]

Quote by: JeffM Barts wrote: Because of human innovation the earth has come to be capable of supporting over 6 billion human beings and will become capable of supporting even more through future innovations. Albeit, not in the style to which we are both accustomed.

JeffM, are you suggesting that only human beings live on this planet? And are you suggesting that human beings can live on this planet in the absence of any other species of plants and animals? One wonders what you had for breakfast this morning. Soylent Green? One wonders where the oxygen that you are breathing came from? Praxair?

[JeffM]

Quote by: barts JeffM, are you suggesting that only human beings live on this planet?

Are you trying to bait me with a question like that? Is that something akin to trolling?

And are you suggesting that human beings can live on this planet in the absence of any other species of plants and animals?

Another inane and nonsensical question. What is your schtick?

One wonders what you had for breakfast this morning. Soylent Green? One wonders where the oxygen that you are breathing came from? Praxair?

Oh, so you want to get insulting now do you? Does being a donor give you immunity from forum moderators?

[barts]

Quote by: JeffM Are you trying to bait me with a question like that? Is that something akin to trolling? Another inane and nonsensical question. What is your schtick? Oh, so you want to get insulting now do you? Does being a donor give you immunity from forum moderators?

So, you don't have any point to make that has anything to do with this thread.

[JeffM]

Quote by: barts So, you don't have any point to make that has anything to do with this thread.

Yes, I do barts. Why not just admit that you were totally out of line with that comment I picked up on. Then you go and suggest that humans are the only life form to be considerd! And again I'll help you understand why you were so wrong.

The earth is now much more capable of supporting many animals in huge numbers which it formerly couldn't support. Deer for one example are much more plentiful because of human influence. Crows and seagulls are also much more plentiful. Need I get down to the lower forms of life?

How about you tell me which animal is not so plentiful now as it was in some distant past you are imagining? Dinosaurs and unicorns don't count.

And btw barts, I know this is not my forum and I know you are a donor but if it was mine I would find this thread to be spamming because it's only a repeat of an existing thread. Why did you start it anyway?

[barts]

Quote by: JeffM The earth is now much more capable of supporting many animals in huge numbers which it formerly couldn't support. How about you tell me which animal is not so plentiful now as it was in some distant past you are imagining? Dinosaurs and unicorns don't count. And btw barts, I know this is not my forum and I know you are a donor but if it was mine I would find this thread to be spamming because it's only a repeat of an existing thread. Why did you start it anyway?

The capacity of earth to support life has diminished since human beings became industrialized, and possibly before. What is happening now is being referred to as the "sixth great extinction event". See also "The Sixth Extinction" and Holocene extinction. That some species, particularly those that scavenge on human societies, are increasing does not negate the fact that human impact is overall diminishing life on earth.

As for starting this thread, let me say a few things. It would appear that you did not read the opening post. Any of us, under the rules, can start any thread we like. If you have problem with me starting this thread, please honor the rules and report me to the moderators.

I wonder, too, what so upsets you about the fact that I help financially support volconvo? Does it offend you that someone would "pay" for a service and an opportunity to debate issues of the day?