Design: intelligent or not?

There were many indigenous societies, sophisticated culture and commerce, traveling to take advantage of seasonal abundance, had food storage techniques. Some Amerindian groups were agricultural. I don't agree with your generalization. Isn't over population one of the big problems we face at this time?

 

In most cases it isn't a matter of inferior science in regard to the issue of creation, because the creation stories of most cultures were not derived from the use of scientific methods.

But if ancient cultures had tried to explain the origin of species through science then their available tools would have been inferior. We have geology, paleontology, embryology, genetics, microscopes, and radiometric clocks. Just so happens those tools are essential in the design question.

 

I won't argue the comparative value of a stone age society. They had slavery, human sacrifice, cannabalism, etc. All the ails of humanity. Nothing to envy.

Overpopulation? A very complexed subject. the answer is depends how you look at it.

But you're missing my point-- they grew no large population because they couldn't support them, and they migrated because they had to, not out of some imagined nobility.

if there ever was an environmental counciousness there's no remanant left. Ever spend time on any reservations?
They are, almost without exception, garbage dumps.

look what happened to the south where the inhabitants could support them.

 

I am often amazed at how pervasive the idea of the noble savage living in harmony with nature and other people has become. It is a myth.

 

I guess you could consider "harmony" anything that is natural, though. And everything being natural, even struggling could be considered harmonious, as it is in accord with nature.

 

which means comparing viable societies is a value judgment without objective merit.

 

It is not my attempt to argue the comparative value of stone aged populations as compared to modern civilization, or to point to some imagined nobility. What I argue for is that the scientific method is not new, that there has been individuals and groups who not only entertained the idea of discovery, but have made important discoveries, some of which have been forgotten and over time been rediscovered.

Well let's look at it this way, over population is when the local carrying capacity to recycle waste in a fashion timely enough not to sicken the inhabitants, occurs.

My point is that having to move on is reasonable. Subsistence farming as well as intensive agriculture was preformed, but there were no dust bowl phenomena until the European invasion. Massive tilling and paving over the earth, plastering the ground with impervious surfaces, alters the consumption, waste, and recycling process. More complex does not necessarily mean "higher".

Yes I have lived on reservation, Navajo, worked with and befriended the people. No remnant left of environmental consciousness? EPA says otherwise.
The disintegration of Indian culture is a modern phenomena.

I find this tendency to categorize my statements as being stereotypically doctrinaire some what frustrating. We spend so much time trying to disassemble preconceived notions.

 

Gecko

Well we are how much different in views..?
I could have written this..
well said.

But be carefull with 'imaginary'
What did einstein say about imagination?

Occam

 

What do you mean by viable society, three people?

 

I think he meant 4
Bandering [punjabi ref] the term 'objective merit' gecko...
where are your smarts?

 

Agree

 

Natural Selection- True; Intelligent Design- False

 

Intelligent design: an omnipotent omniscient being decides to create a limited world with a finite mix of ignorant people suffering an unfair mix of misery and pleasure who delusionally proclaim this harsh creation to be intelligently constructed.

 

Nature displays form fitting function. Nature also displays intelligence.

 

Natural selection certainly is the driving force behind adaptive change and, ultimately, the driving force behind speciation, however phyletic gradualism is false.

The debate between punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism is, sadly, a source of ammunition for intelligent design advocates. They often quote mine scientists who doubt gradualism in an attempt to make it look like they doubt evolution. Even Stephen Gould, clearly a champion of the theory of evolution, has been the victim of such quote mining.

 

ahh quote mining. Personally I would feel bad for misusing what someone has said for a cause. I commit to things I believe are right, and if I'm proven wrong, I concede. What is it with the run around?

 

If you look into the statements made by design advocates in court cases compared with the statements they make in books, or in posts on design advocating web sites it is even worse. These people constantly lie to cover-up their religious motivations. Of course I guess it is easy to lie when you convince yourself that you are lying for god.

 

How did the ancient ones become as WE are?From fur -covered ,instict -driven ,grunting primates (if true)understanding almost nothing about anything except the immediacy of survival--cowering in caves and forests in abject terror of the natural world around them ,to developing language,morals,agriculture,the understanding of math,science ,physiology,and the natural laws that govern our every move? Natural evolutionary forces seem to fit the bill. If ,in fact,a deity created all that we are able to comprehend--all that is manifested to us--wouldn't it make sense to create humanity fully realized with all that I mentioned already in place? At least language. So proposition two-that a deity and evolution are not mutually exclusive is a pretty good rationalization for hanging on to the idea of deity for the forseeable future.

 

"If ,in fact,a deity created all that we are able to comprehend--all that is manifested to us--wouldn't it make sense to create humanity fully realized with all that I mentioned already in place?"

If you are talking about aboriginal creation then no, it would not make sense. Paleontology, embryology, and comparative anatomy all yield many results that make aboriginal creation an impossibility. Creation is at odds with faunal succession and lineage divergence in the fossil record, and also with the presence of vestigial organs in embryological development.

Furthermore while god and evolution are not exclusive (god could create through evolutionary processes) it is not completely rational to adopt this position.

If you are postulating god in an attempt to ease the problem of existence itself, or of the existence of complexity, then you have cut the knot when you could not untie it. You would still have to explain god's existence and god's complexity. How would you do this? By postulating an infinite regress of gods?

 

No.I would just pose a rhetorical question as I did.