Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Heathen Dawn · 10-18-2002, 02:36 AM

This is a new idea I've been thinking up... as a follow-up and an elaboration to my Intelligent Evolution theory. Intelligent Evolution is the theory that evolution itself is the result of design. Such that for example humans are similar to chimpanzees because the designer(s) based humans on the chimpanzee source-code.

Now, why post this on Non-Abrahamic? Because I think I can also advance a theory in which living organisms are the work of multiple hands, ie polytheistic creationism.

Denis Giron, in the Islam section of the library, has an article <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/denis_giron/multiple.html" target="_blank">Qur'an - A Work of Multiple Hands</a>, where he argues that imperfections, contradictions, double phrasing and interpolations are the result of the fact that the Qur'an is a work of many authors. The same conclusion holds true for the Bible. Now I was wondering: can the methodology of textual criticism apply to living organisms as well? Can we say the various imperfections are the result of many authors working on the organisms?

The trouble with monotheistic creationists is that they jump the gun too fast in concluding that their single god is the designer of all life. The leap from "designer" to (say) "Christ" is one great mental leap indeed. A true research of intelligent design means that we just assume a designer without knowing anything about the designer. We don't know if it's one designer or many. I think the evidence of design in living organisms points to a plurality of designers rather than a single one.

What think you?

seanie · 10-18-2002, 03:22 AM

[possible ad hom deleted]

Seanie - please refrain from ad hominem attacks in the NARP forum. Feel free to attack the idea, not the poster.

Grizzly
Moderator

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: Grizzly ]

Lord Asriel · 10-18-2002, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn:
 I think the evidence of design in living organisms points to a plurality of designers rather than a single one.

What think you?

What evidence of design in living organisms?

I don't think this one is going to run, HD.

Perchance · 10-18-2002, 04:42 AM

Hi Heathen Dawn,

I think it's an attractive idea- but then, I find polytheism deeply attractive anyway, so I may not be objectively evaluating the merits of the idea

. But, as Lord Asriel said, you would suffer the same problems of trying to prove design that a monotheist would. The only problem that this idea seems to get rid of is the idea that every organism in the world has to be perfect because it comes originally from a perfect, monotheistic god. I think you would still suffer the same problems, to wit:

-Proving evolution is somehow guided or based on patterns other than those just found in nature.

-Proving that it's the gods that you think are responsible for it rather than some other divine beings.

-Proving that the divine beings exist.

And a whole host of others.

I think it's an idea that I would find more attractive than monotheistic creationism, and you could argue that, if the gods intended the world to turn out the way it did, then well, of course it would work. But then, so does deistic evolution. And a god who isn't really different from the natural process of evolution seems pointless.

-Perchance.

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]

seanie · 10-18-2002, 05:20 AM

I apologise. It was what I was thinking, but I'll admit it wasn't a particularly rigorous analysis.

I don't see exactly what's being presented here.
It doesn't appear to be a 'theory' in the 'testable (falsifiable) set of facts or propositions with explanatory and predictive power' sense. It appears to be a 'theory' in the colloquial 'an idea I came up with' sense.

Where's the evidence?

We already have a perfectly adequate scientific non-questionbegging theory that accounts for the diversity of life, with it's flaws,imperfections and improvisations.

Evolution.

Blind, purposeless, without a guiding intelligence.

Where does 'too many cooks' creationism get us?

What evidence is there for it that isn't far more reasonably explained by straightforward evolution? How do we evaluate the claim?

Ok we can we say the various imperfections are the result of many authors working on the organisms. But saying it doesn't make it true.

Did the Jewish God lose the foreskin vote and has been getting his own back ever since? What are we meant to be looking at as evidence?

A true research of intelligent design means that we just assume a designer without knowing anything about the designer. We don't know if it's one designer or many. I think the evidence of design in living organisms points to a plurality of designers rather than a single one.

Just what research do you propose? How about we not 'just assume' anthing? True we don't don't know if it's one designer or many. But then we don't know if there's a designer at all.

I'm not aware of evidence of a designer at all let alone evidence for a bunch of them.

What is it?

seanie · 10-18-2002, 08:27 AM

Further to that I think the analogy of multiple authors to a text is a poor one. A more obvious analogy for an organism is to a functional object designed by a team of people. A car for example.

I think all cars (at least nowadays) are designed by many people. It's not inconceivable that one person could do it but it would be a tall order given the complexity. The guy who knows about fuel injection probably doesn't know the best way to stitch the upholstery. For us it's easier to specialise, hence a team.

Now maybe that's how our multiple gods did it.

Shiva got the arms, Zeus got the duodenum, Allah got the pancreas etc. (We can be pretty sure Jehovah didn't get the genitals).

There's also the possibility that God sub-contracted.

Time Bandit creationism.

Leaving that aside, teams of people do create a problem of coordination. The larger and more complex the project, the larger and more complex the team, the more difficult it becomes hold it all together. A lead consultant/project manager is still a good idea.

Leaving that aside, there's a more important point I want to make.

In any design there are compromises and imperfections. However those compromises and imperfections are not necessarily due to the fact that a number of people were involved in the design. There down to inescapable constraints on the design coupled with errors. All design consists of dilemmas.

We could do this but then we'd have to do that.

That would be great but it costs to much.

If we were starting from scratch yes, but we're too far down the path we're on.

And that's the same for a singular designer as well as a team. If one person, with all the knowledge of the team, were to design a car you'd still get a car with compromises and faults. In fact it would be fairly indistinguishable from any other car.

Imperfection is no argument for multiple designers over a singular one. It's just an argument for less than perfect designer/s.

And since less than perfect, ad hoc, ingenious jury-rigged design is exactly what you'd expect to see in a blind, algorithmic, evolutionary process that requires neither god nor gods, why bother even debating how many superfluous gods there are?

Heathen Dawn · 10-19-2002, 02:23 AM

I apologize for trying to find "scientific support" for what I want to believe in...

Anyway, Intelligent Evolution is a pet theory of mine for those times when I couldn't believe evolution by natural selection really had the creative power ascribed to it. I often have problems with "information theory", that is, how complex functional specialized information forms in living organisms. I have some sympathy with the design argument, perish the thought!

The trouble I have with evolution is how to accept its compatibility with religion. I have long held that if evolution is true then theistic religion of any kind (monotheism, polytheism) is false, because evolution is necessarily atheistic. All attempts to convince me of a "God guided evolution" scenario (theistic evolution) have quite failed. It seems few believers have a problem with science like I have. Most of them, including most pagans, see no contradiction between evolution and their beliefs.

Perchance · 10-19-2002, 07:04 AM

Heathen Dawn,

I don't think anyone has a problem with whatever you want to believe in. But there are problems with an argument from design that endure, I think, whether you ascribe the "creation" to one pair of hands, two, many, or to something with no hands at all. On religious grounds, it can endure. On scientific grounds, it falls down.

Why do you think of evolution as necessarily atheistic?

-Perchance.

Heathen Dawn · 10-19-2002, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Perchance:

Why do you think of evolution as necessarily atheistic?

Evolution is an autonomous process made by the chemicals of their own accord. It does not have an end (telos, hence teleology) in mind, and the scientific theory does not need to refer to any hand guiding it.

Evolution always struck me as the epitome of naturalism and the antithesis to theism. I find it very hard to reconcile evolution (a lordless process) with theism (assumption of external, purposeful sovereignty over the natural world).

Perchance · 10-19-2002, 07:23 AM

If polytheistic gods are limited, though, does it follow that they have to have dominion over evolution? There must be some things in the world that no god has control over; I haven't ever heard a pagan talk about a god of cars, for instance. Is it possible to see evolution as one of those things that are outside the gods' control, or something that a personal, limited god could leave alone?

If you think that you need to combine theism with evolution, then I think something closer to theistic evolution is the best bet, rather than trying to deny that evolution exists.

-Perchance.

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]

10-18-2002, 02:36 AM	#1
Heathen Dawn Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 4,656	Creation - A Work of Multiple Hands? This is a new idea I've been thinking up... as a follow-up and an elaboration to my Intelligent Evolution theory. Intelligent Evolution is the theory that evolution itself is the result of design. Such that for example humans are similar to chimpanzees because the designer(s) based humans on the chimpanzee source-code. Now, why post this on Non-Abrahamic? Because I think I can also advance a theory in which living organisms are the work of multiple hands, ie polytheistic creationism. Denis Giron, in the Islam section of the library, has an article <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/denis_giron/multiple.html" target="_blank">Qur'an - A Work of Multiple Hands</a>, where he argues that imperfections, contradictions, double phrasing and interpolations are the result of the fact that the Qur'an is a work of many authors. The same conclusion holds true for the Bible. Now I was wondering: can the methodology of textual criticism apply to living organisms as well? Can we say the various imperfections are the result of many authors working on the organisms? The trouble with monotheistic creationists is that they jump the gun too fast in concluding that their single god is the designer of all life. The leap from "designer" to (say) "Christ" is one great mental leap indeed. A true research of intelligent design means that we just assume a designer without knowing anything about the designer. We don't know if it's one designer or many. I think the evidence of design in living organisms points to a plurality of designers rather than a single one. What think you?

10-18-2002, 03:22 AM	#2
seanie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Edinburgh. Scotland Posts: 2,532	[possible ad hom deleted] Seanie - please refrain from ad hominem attacks in the NARP forum. Feel free to attack the idea, not the poster. Grizzly Moderator [ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: Grizzly ]</p>

10-18-2002, 04:42 AM	#4
Perchance Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 1,059	Hi Heathen Dawn, I think it's an attractive idea- but then, I find polytheism deeply attractive anyway, so I may not be objectively evaluating the merits of the idea . But, as Lord Asriel said, you would suffer the same problems of trying to prove design that a monotheist would. The only problem that this idea seems to get rid of is the idea that every organism in the world has to be perfect because it comes originally from a perfect, monotheistic god. I think you would still suffer the same problems, to wit: -Proving evolution is somehow guided or based on patterns other than those just found in nature. -Proving that it's the gods that you think are responsible for it rather than some other divine beings. -Proving that the divine beings exist. And a whole host of others. I think it's an idea that I would find more attractive than monotheistic creationism, and you could argue that, if the gods intended the world to turn out the way it did, then well, of course it would work. But then, so does deistic evolution. And a god who isn't really different from the natural process of evolution seems pointless. -Perchance. [ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

10-19-2002, 07:23 AM	#10
Perchance Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 1,059	If polytheistic gods are limited, though, does it follow that they have to have dominion over evolution? There must be some things in the world that no god has control over; I haven't ever heard a pagan talk about a god of cars, for instance. Is it possible to see evolution as one of those things that are outside the gods' control, or something that a personal, limited god could leave alone? If you think that you need to combine theism with evolution, then I think something closer to theistic evolution is the best bet, rather than trying to deny that evolution exists. -Perchance. [ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-18-2002, 05:20 AM	#5
seanie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Edinburgh. Scotland Posts: 2,532	I apologise. It was what I was thinking, but I'll admit it wasn't a particularly rigorous analysis. I don't see exactly what's being presented here. It doesn't appear to be a 'theory' in the 'testable (falsifiable) set of facts or propositions with explanatory and predictive power' sense. It appears to be a 'theory' in the colloquial 'an idea I came up with' sense. Where's the evidence? We already have a perfectly adequate scientific non-questionbegging theory that accounts for the diversity of life, with it's flaws,imperfections and improvisations. Evolution. Blind, purposeless, without a guiding intelligence. Where does 'too many cooks' creationism get us? What evidence is there for it that isn't far more reasonably explained by straightforward evolution? How do we evaluate the claim? Ok we can we say the various imperfections are the result of many authors working on the organisms. But saying it doesn't make it true. Did the Jewish God lose the foreskin vote and has been getting his own back ever since? What are we meant to be looking at as evidence? A true research of intelligent design means that we just assume a designer without knowing anything about the designer. We don't know if it's one designer or many. I think the evidence of design in living organisms points to a plurality of designers rather than a single one. Just what research do you propose? How about we not 'just assume' anthing? True we don't don't know if it's one designer or many. But then we don't know if there's a designer at all. I'm not aware of evidence of a designer at all let alone evidence for a bunch of them. What is it?

10-18-2002, 08:27 AM	#6
seanie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Edinburgh. Scotland Posts: 2,532	Further to that I think the analogy of multiple authors to a text is a poor one. A more obvious analogy for an organism is to a functional object designed by a team of people. A car for example. I think all cars (at least nowadays) are designed by many people. It's not inconceivable that one person could do it but it would be a tall order given the complexity. The guy who knows about fuel injection probably doesn't know the best way to stitch the upholstery. For us it's easier to specialise, hence a team. Now maybe that's how our multiple gods did it. Shiva got the arms, Zeus got the duodenum, Allah got the pancreas etc. (We can be pretty sure Jehovah didn't get the genitals). There's also the possibility that God sub-contracted. Time Bandit creationism. Leaving that aside, teams of people do create a problem of coordination. The larger and more complex the project, the larger and more complex the team, the more difficult it becomes hold it all together. A lead consultant/project manager is still a good idea. Leaving that aside, there's a more important point I want to make. In any design there are compromises and imperfections. However those compromises and imperfections are not necessarily due to the fact that a number of people were involved in the design. There down to inescapable constraints on the design coupled with errors. All design consists of dilemmas. We could do this but then we'd have to do that. That would be great but it costs to much. If we were starting from scratch yes, but we're too far down the path we're on. And that's the same for a singular designer as well as a team. If one person, with all the knowledge of the team, were to design a car you'd still get a car with compromises and faults. In fact it would be fairly indistinguishable from any other car. Imperfection is no argument for multiple designers over a singular one. It's just an argument for less than perfect designer/s. And since less than perfect, ad hoc, ingenious jury-rigged design is exactly what you'd expect to see in a blind, algorithmic, evolutionary process that requires neither god nor gods, why bother even debating how many superfluous gods there are?

10-19-2002, 02:23 AM	#7
Heathen Dawn Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 4,656	I apologize for trying to find "scientific support" for what I want to believe in... Anyway, Intelligent Evolution is a pet theory of mine for those times when I couldn't believe evolution by natural selection really had the creative power ascribed to it. I often have problems with "information theory", that is, how complex functional specialized information forms in living organisms. I have some sympathy with the design argument, perish the thought! The trouble I have with evolution is how to accept its compatibility with religion. I have long held that if evolution is true then theistic religion of any kind (monotheism, polytheism) is false, because evolution is necessarily atheistic. All attempts to convince me of a "God guided evolution" scenario (theistic evolution) have quite failed. It seems few believers have a problem with science like I have. Most of them, including most pagans, see no contradiction between evolution and their beliefs.

10-19-2002, 07:04 AM	#8
Perchance Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 1,059	Heathen Dawn, I don't think anyone has a problem with whatever you want to believe in. But there are problems with an argument from design that endure, I think, whether you ascribe the "creation" to one pair of hands, two, many, or to something with no hands at all. On religious grounds, it can endure. On scientific grounds, it falls down. Why do you think of evolution as necessarily atheistic? -Perchance.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.