Evolution (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 19:45 (5721 days ago) @ BBella

BBella writes in support of David Turell's contention that "inorganic matter, using chance, doesn't work." - Please don't say that your "opinion counts for naught"! You've been through experiences that no other correspondent on this forum can even begin to match, and in any case even the most brilliant minds can't agree among themselves. Despite the pontifications of the pontiffs and the recondite vocabulary of the specialists, we're all equal in this debate. - You wrote: "I don't think the question we are really discussing here is whether matter, organic or inorganic, is guided by intelligence, or whether intelligence came before matter; it's what to call this intelligence and whether this intelligence is unified and with one or many agendas." - In my view, there's a problem with the term 'intelligence', and I'd like to break down what you say into phases. David has drawn our attention to the astronomical odds against chance being able to start life off (not to mention producing hitherto non-existent organs). But atheists believe that it is possible, and that once life has begun, "natural laws" take over, with a combination of random mutations and natural selection. So Phase One, as discussed on this thread, really is chance (non-consciousness) versus intelligence (= conscious design). - Phase Two is what else we might mean by "intelligence". If we separate it from all the personalized notions of a father figure in the sky, we may find common ground between George's atheism, David's panentheism, my own agnosticism, and even the religions as represented by Mark, since these too are full of mysteries that are open to interpretation. We might link intelligence to Nature and natural laws, and to superorganisms like ant colonies or ourselves (with so many living units that act independently and yet are part of the whole), and we should keep in mind that 96% of the universe is believed to be made up of so-called dark energy and dark matter, of which we know nothing. If "intelligence" means a nebulous force which somehow keeps the whole show running, we might all agree. - Phase Three is your "agenda" question, and that's where all the definitions of "intelligence" diverge and most discussions begin. - You finish your post with an interesting observation: "science wants to nail down this intelligence to one unified force, just so science can name it." Names oversimplify. When we give a name to something, we think somehow that we've captured it ... given it an official form. "Random mutations", for example, has a good convincing ring to it, but the words don't cover a millionth of the complexities involved in their role. DNA trips nicely off the tongue, as do reproduction, consciousness, memory. Because we have terms for these inexplicable wonders, somehow they lose their mystery. It's like an illness. The moment the doctor names it, we feel a slight sense of relief ... it's official, identifiable, understandable. Language makes things seem so familiar that we often can't see beyond the words. Whether science will ever "prove without any shadow of doubt that this force is intelligent" is on a par with whether science will ever prove that the force is not intelligent. I doubt very much if it can be proved either way. But giving it a name won't actually explain anything, and the names already given to it down through the centuries have raised at least as many problems as they've solved. We might just have to settle for The Unknowable ... which I guess brings us back to agnosticism.