I would certainly be more in favour of Intelligent Design if the movement wasn't entirely supported by wealthy figures who are prominent in organised religion.
However, I am happy that the more open explanation does strike a chord. I am perturbed by the general feeling that because some stupid people believe something strongly, the entire broad concept should be dismissed as stupid.
I have always found evolution dubious as a universal theory; reliance on external environmental pressures with denial of the possibility of direct influence always seemed iffy to me. I recall a 3D artist who "evolved" patterns, personally selecting his favourite of six computer-generated offspring through several iterations of "evolution", not realising that this wasn't natural selection. Thus if I had to pick one model of life creation, it would be "Intelligent Selection". This I think would be categorised as Don't Know on the Horizon poll, although as an agnostic "Don't Know" is itself the most accurate statement of how I believe species are created.
My biggest problem with the poll is the question itself. I feel it is presumptive to suggest that all life has been created in the same way. Indeed, the "one creative force" concept is Judeao-Christian: many prior belief systems had individual gods with their own portfolio.
Many species alive today were created by man - via breeding or DNA pick'n'mix. Man has also designed (through the medium of fiction) many creatures and abilities that have not actually been randomly created in nature. Intelligent Design is not without a seed of plausibility; where it falls down is the "it's really clever so something clever *must* have created it" logic. Any given lifeform may have been created by chance, design, evolution or a combination of the three. Unlikely is not impossible.
However, whilst my entire position is founded on the belief that a lack of proof does not deny a possibility, I fear the real goal of Intelligent Design is to undermine the importance of proof.
Organised religion promotes an unprovable being called God, gives him the unprovable credentials of Creator Of The Universe, and states without proof that they are representives of this God. Conformance is rewarded by a heavenly afterlife, the existence of which is conveniently not proven until it is too late. Happily for organised religions, all conformance is in our tangible provable world. Religion provides unproven feel-good answers to big questions. Religion is not completely evil; it provides pleasure and a framework for many people's lifes.
For those dubious of organised religion, it is indeed worrying to find oneself in any level of agreement on a subject like creation. But it's not something where you *need* to pick a side. Even science is proceeding both with the the theory that life evolves, and the theory that life can be created by design. Life exists, and however it came about it's worthy of respect and admiration.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The case for "Don't Know"
Date: 2006-01-30 01:45 am (UTC)However, I am happy that the more open explanation does strike a chord. I am perturbed by the general feeling that because some stupid people believe something strongly, the entire broad concept should be dismissed as stupid.
I have always found evolution dubious as a universal theory; reliance on external environmental pressures with denial of the possibility of direct influence always seemed iffy to me. I recall a 3D artist who "evolved" patterns, personally selecting his favourite of six computer-generated offspring through several iterations of "evolution", not realising that this wasn't natural selection. Thus if I had to pick one model of life creation, it would be "Intelligent Selection". This I think would be categorised as Don't Know on the Horizon poll, although as an agnostic "Don't Know" is itself the most accurate statement of how I believe species are created.
My biggest problem with the poll is the question itself. I feel it is presumptive to suggest that all life has been created in the same way. Indeed, the "one creative force" concept is Judeao-Christian: many prior belief systems had individual gods with their own portfolio.
Many species alive today were created by man - via breeding or DNA pick'n'mix. Man has also designed (through the medium of fiction) many creatures and abilities that have not actually been randomly created in nature. Intelligent Design is not without a seed of plausibility; where it falls down is the "it's really clever so something clever *must* have created it" logic. Any given lifeform may have been created by chance, design, evolution or a combination of the three. Unlikely is not impossible.
However, whilst my entire position is founded on the belief that a lack of proof does not deny a possibility, I fear the real goal of Intelligent Design is to undermine the importance of proof.
Organised religion promotes an unprovable being called God, gives him the unprovable credentials of Creator Of The Universe, and states without proof that they are representives of this God. Conformance is rewarded by a heavenly afterlife, the existence of which is conveniently not proven until it is too late. Happily for organised religions, all conformance is in our tangible provable world. Religion provides unproven feel-good answers to big questions. Religion is not completely evil; it provides pleasure and a framework for many people's lifes.
For those dubious of organised religion, it is indeed worrying to find oneself in any level of agreement on a subject like creation. But it's not something where you *need* to pick a side. Even science is proceeding both with the the theory that life evolves, and the theory that life can be created by design. Life exists, and however it came about it's worthy of respect and admiration.