Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Are the Inner Workings of Mankind Really All Monkey Business?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email


Since the article link and excerpt don’t contribute adequately to the purpose of this entry, I’ve decided to remove them.–Crandaddy

Are humans really descended from apes without any help from intelligent agency? Does RM+NS=skyscrapers and supercomputers? If the answer is yes, then evolutionary theorists appear to have a real whopper of a puzzle to figure out!!! Oh, wait…the descent of man sans any intelligent intervention is as well established as gravity. I temporarily forgot; my bad.

Comments
[...] pro-intelligent design blog Uncommon Descent to his fan club. And the goods have arrived – with this post about an ID theorist in India. Our blogger has found a report in the International Reporter, which [...]ID Gets Astrologer Ally « Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion
December 24, 2008
December
12
Dec
24
24
2008
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT
Ok, thanks Crandaddy for responding to my questions and helping me to understand your position. I'll be taking a look at the links that Bombadil provided in good time. KarlInoculated Mind
January 18, 2006
January
01
Jan
18
18
2006
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT
Karl, “I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it seems that what you are saying that not until the complete picture of the evolution of the mental cognition via evolution is worked out, that your position will be that it was designed.” I have my own beliefs and preferences, but I realize that such things are not scientific in nature. Gary, “But the mind is a conceptual entity, not physical.” Are you saying that the mind cannot be reduced to the physical? Let's presume (for the sake of argument, if nothing else) that mental abilities proceed from neurochemical states in the brain. Those states had to come about, somehow. “But let me ask you this: what kind of account would finally satisfy you that the development of the human mind is sufficiently explained by natural evolution that there’s no reason to suppose an intelligent designer was involved?” Look at the quote you used in comment #42. That, or for it to be shown that there is nothing special about human mental abilities and that something very much akin to them would inevitably (or at least probably) have arisen by unintelligent means. Perhaps if it could be shown that a particular human mental quality were a byproduct of a part of the brain for which we have a reasonably probable step-by-step model of its evolution, I think I would accept that; of course this kind of goes along with what I meant by the quote you cited. “Or to put it another way, how could we ever know that no deliberate intelligent agency was involved? Can you think of any criteria by which such agency could be definitely ruled out?” The ontological status of design can never be established. If I go outside, pick up an ordinary rock from the ground, and declare, “This rock was deliberately designed by an intelligent agent.”, there’s nothing you can do to prove me wrong. What we look for is the best explanation to fit the evidence. Intelligent agents are innovators. They incorporate means to achieve ends which otherwise would be highly improbable. What I look for in human mental abilities as well as other biological phenomena is, first, whether or not there is something special about the phenomenon in question which warrants a special explanation of how it originated–Does it have a beneficial function? Does it posess a unique quality which sets it apart from other phenomena in nature? If the answer is yes to either of these two questions, then I’m interested in knowing how likely it is that the phenomenon could have arisen by way of unintelligent means–Could it reasonably have arisen by chance? Is there some understood natural law that causes it? If the answer is yes to either of the first two questions and no to both of the second two, then I don’t see how we can avoid comming to the conclusion that, at least for the time being and from our own finite epistemic perspective, the phenomenon in question is best explained as being the product of intelligent design. It’s been fun guys. However, I have other matters to which I must tend, and I think this may be the last comment from me on this thread. I’ll leave the comment box open, so you all can continue discussing. Be courteous and respectful; that’s all I ask.crandaddy
January 17, 2006
January
01
Jan
17
17
2006
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
Note that Brayton completely ignored the arguments put forth in the links I provided in my last post, says Bombadill Not me, though... Back in October and November I did a series of posts on Luskin's views on paleoanthropology. I am pulling them from the archive at my old site and reposting them here... Back in July of 2005 PCID...Afarensis
January 17, 2006
January
01
Jan
17
17
2006
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
The case was cited in the article that originally began this thread has been settled. http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7795&news_iv_ctrl=1241&abbr=pr >The district’s board of trustees has also agreed to language stating, “No school over which the School District has authority, including the High School, shall offer, presently or in the future, the course entitled ‘Philosophy of Design’ or ‘Philosophy of Intelligent Design’ or any other course that promotes or endorses creationism, creation science, or intelligent design.”Gary Glass
January 17, 2006
January
01
Jan
17
17
2006
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
>Note that Brayton completely ignored the arguments put forth in the links I provided in my last post. Instead, he proceeds to detail the standard Darwinian interpretation of the hominid evidence. But isn't the Darwinian interpretation in fact a response to Brayton? You've got Brayton's interpretation of the evidence, and the standard Darwinian interpretation, so you choose the interpretation that works best. Suppose it was a crime scene investigation. Two detectives look at the evidence in the room, a scuff on the floor, a broken window, a spent shell casing. One of them concludes it's a suicide. One of them a homicide. Somebody lifts a print from the casing and it matches the victim. Looks like suicide!Gary Glass
January 17, 2006
January
01
Jan
17
17
2006
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Note that Brayton completely ignored the arguments put forth in the links I provided in my last post. Instead, he proceeds to detail the standard Darwinian interpretation of the hominid evidence. Note also how the glaring inconsistencies in the hominid record are not exposed or discussed in the treatment he provides. For anyone interested in learning about these gaps in Brayton's summary, please read the treatments I linked above. Here they are again: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1146 http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/839 http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.06.Human_Origins.pdfBombadill
January 17, 2006
January
01
Jan
17
17
2006
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
Why was I banned in the first place? The reason was given in the SETI comment. I suggest you drop the subject of banning now while you're still ahead. -dsGary Glass
January 17, 2006
January
01
Jan
17
17
2006
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
DS, are you deleting my comments? If you don't want me to participate, please just tell me, OK? I don't want to waste your time any more than my own. You were banned but miscommunication between moderators let you keep slipping back in with a new registration. Now that I've remedied the moderation problem and observed a number of your comments I think the first banning was hasty. Stick around.Gary Glass
January 17, 2006
January
01
Jan
17
17
2006
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
More Nonsense from Bombadill Dembski himself used to post some pretty bad stuff to Uncommon Descent, but the group of acolytes he put in charge of it a couple weeks ago has rapidly proven to be way beneath him in the credibility department (and... But not so far beneath that Ed Brayton won't write a thousand words in response to a one hundred word comment from Bombadill. The man doth protest too much, methinks. :-) -dsDispatches from the Culture Wars
January 17, 2006
January
01
Jan
17
17
2006
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
CD: I think that once the human brain’s neurochemistry is understood, a reasonably probable step-by-step model of its unintelligent evolution is warranted. I think such an account could only be speculative. It's hard to see how it could be experimentally verified. What you're asking for, if I understand you correctly, is a recapitulation of the development of the human mind. But the mind is a conceptual entity, not physical. -- Not to say that this is not a study worth undertaking, and in fact a number of scientists and philosophers do very interesting work in this area. -- But let me ask you this: what kind of account would finally satisfy you that the development of the human mind is sufficiently explained by natural evolution that there's no reason to suppose an intelligent designer was involved? Or to put it another way, how could we ever know that no deliberate intelligent agency was involved? Can you think of any criteria by which such agency could be definitely ruled out?Gary Glass
January 17, 2006
January
01
Jan
17
17
2006
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
>SETI is about looking for intelligence. And I’m not looking for any more comments from you. Hasta la vista, baby. -ds DaveScott, I'm not sure what this means. Have I been banned? Am I unwelcome? Or are you just saying you don't wish to continue the conversation with me?Gary Glass
January 17, 2006
January
01
Jan
17
17
2006
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
I wasn't arguing one way or the other, I'm just trying to understand how you (and others) have arrived at your position. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems that what you are saying that not until the complete picture of the evolution of the mental cognition via evolution is worked out, that your position will be that it was designed. Thanks, KarlInoculated Mind
January 17, 2006
January
01
Jan
17
17
2006
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT
Inoculated Mind, I'm really not in a position to positvely assert that human mental abilities, such as sapience, could not have or did not evolve without intelligence playing some role in their developement. I'm still trying to figure all this out, myself. Really, my position is that I don't see how one is justified in positively asserting that human cognitive faculties did, in fact, evolve without intelligent intervention, having only the information about the human mind and brain that we have now. It seems to me that what needs to be done is scientists need to show how human mental abilities can be reduced to the neurochemical aspects of the brain and then show how they could have evolved sans intelligent intervention. I think that once the human brain's neurochemistry is understood, a reasonably probable step-by-step model of its unintelligent evolution is warranted. "It has been mentioned above that ID is compatible with ape->human with or without intelligent intervention, I’m just wondering what leads you to suggest one scenario over the other." ID is a broad concept. It is compatible with a scenario in which the ape to man transition could have occured without intelligent intervention. My intention with starting this thread was to encourage thought on the issue, not really to argue one way or the other. You can see my stance on this matter in the above paragraph. "Do you know of any discussion in the ID community about apes->humans, or is it considered of little importance?" There is discussion on the matter. I recommend you look at the articles by Luskin and Dembski that Bombadill has provided.crandaddy
January 16, 2006
January
01
Jan
16
16
2006
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
Hi Gary, You can get the details here: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1146 http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/839 http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.06.Human_Origins.pdfBombadill
January 16, 2006
January
01
Jan
16
16
2006
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
>Paleoanthropological studies reveal that hominids appear suddenly, without clear direct fossil ancestors, and distinct from previous hominids. Bombadil, I posted a little earlier today, but my post disappeared. Anyway, what I asked was: where are these studies? Also: which hominids are distinct from which other hominids?Gary Glass
January 16, 2006
January
01
Jan
16
16
2006
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
Paleoanthropological studies reveal that hominids appear suddenly, without clear direct fossil ancestors, and distinct from previous hominids. There simply is no escaping the empirical fact that the fossil record demonstrates the abrupt appearance of novel fossil forms without similar precursors. You have homology, genetically, because of the similarity of body plans, etc... It's to be expected. But, I believe it's an unwarranted assumption to conlcude that homo sapiens share a direct ancestry with hominids, in light of the evidence. The evidence would support a common designer. The abrupt appearance of Homo as a novel and distinct form, significantly different from earlier fossil forms and without links to previous fossil forms, implicates intelligent design.Bombadill
January 16, 2006
January
01
Jan
16
16
2006
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
Crandaddy, first, thanks for responding to me thus far. What I am getting at are some of the particulars of what about the ape->human transition requires intelligent input. Let's say that semi-sapient primates were designed ex-nihilo, let's even go so far as to assume that sapience cannot evolve on its own at all. But it seems that an intelligent designer could set something up that will inevitably lead to fully sapient animals. What evidence suggests that in this situation, humans could not have or did not have evolved from more primitive ape ancestors? It has been mentioned above that ID is compatible with ape->human with or without intelligent intervention, I'm just wondering what leads you to suggest one scenario over the other. And as a side note, the whole genomes of humans and chimpanzees are freely available, and there's a slough of recent research on differences in crucial neurological genes between the two. The time since divergence has recently been narrowed to between 5 and 7 m.y.a. in a preliminary study. Do you know of any discussion in the ID community about apes->humans, or is it considered of little importance?Inoculated Mind
January 16, 2006
January
01
Jan
16
16
2006
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT
Follow the links in comments 32 and 34 to see just how bigoted the other side can be. Is there any bottom to how low they can go? I wonder.crandaddy
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT
Inoculated Mind, "So crandaddy, how do you know that other apes (and other whole families of animals) do not possess, to some degree, those mental characteristics that you describe?" I never said they didn't. Other species certainly posess lesser levels of intelligence. I'm not so sure about other mental processes. Neo-Darwinian evolutionary pathways to the mental abilities of other creatures appear to be lacking, as well. This doesn't mean I know for a fact that these things couldn't have evolved; it just means we're not justified in saying they evolved unless we have sufficient empirical evidence. As far as intelligence is concerned, I don't know of any well-established process whereby it could have originated without intelligence playing some role in its developement.crandaddy
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT
[...] On this post yesterday, one of Dembski’s friends who goes by the psuedonym Crandaddy quoted a Dr. Raj Baldev to cast a wide net of doubt on common descent and evolution. [...]Ocellated » Cosmo Theorists Don’t Support Evolution
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT
"I’m interested in whether or not unique human cognitive abilities, such as high intelligence, ability to grasp abstract concepts, and hold beliefs not conducive to survival and reproduction could have evolved without intelligent intervention.–Crandaddy" So crandaddy, how do you know that other apes (and other whole families of animals) do not possess, to some degree, those mental characteristics that you describe?Inoculated Mind
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT
ID and Astrology Again One of Dembski's acolytes posted an item at Uncommon Descent about an Indian "cosmo theorist" supporting ID. I'm not sure why he posted it, since it said nothing of substance, it just had a quote from the guy saying that...Dispatches from the Culture Wars
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
>SETI is indeed looking for signals that show they’re designed…that they’re truly from SOMEONE or SOMETHING intelligent. You don't need an objective test for designedness to recognize artificiality. We assume that something that doesn't occur in nature independent of human agency is designed. Some typical hallmarks of non-natural phenomena are linearity, regularity, etc. None of these hallmarks are conclusive, but they are suggestive. There are no conclusive hallmarks. Pulsars are regular. Sunlight is linear. etc. >SETI is searching for something we’ve never seen or heard. If someone digs something up and it’s something no human has ever seen (unlike arrowheads), we can infer it was designed or not. It needn’t be something we have examples of. The first person to ever find an arrowhead couldn’t have used that argument. Then how would you recognize something as artificial? Are you perceiving some quality of "artificiality" in it? >Stonehenge is something of the likes we’ve never seen, but it’s obvious that it’s designed, tho we know NOTHING of who could have built it, what they were like, how they built it…really nothing at all about any of it besides the fact that it is clearly the result of an intelligent cause. It doesn't matter that we don't know who did it, or what they were like, or how they built it. We do assume they were human beings, because in our experience only human beings shape enormous stones into regular geometric forms, arrange them in geometric patterns, and stack them up. In other words, Stonehenge looks designed because it shares obvious characteristics with other stuff we know is designed, because we designed them: the pyramids, Greek temples, standing stones, sundials, etc. Could Stonehenge in fact have been designed and constructed by Star Children from Titan? Sure. But we've no reason to think it was. Suppose I took a glass of water and carefully poured it out on ground in a very irregular way. Then I brought you over and said, "Look at that puddle of water. There must be a leak somewhere." You would start looking for a leak. Now, I deliberately and intelligently designed the puddle to deceive you, to look like an accidental thing. How could I have done that? If there is something that you can just see about design, how could I design something that looks undesigned? >If life is totally meaningless, which means the universe is as well- how can ANYTHING have meaning? Depends what you think "meaning" is. In any case, this issue has no scientific bearing on whether or not evolution is real or ID is real. Meaningfulness is not a scientific criterion. >You cannot have meaning within an overall space that is devoid of any meaning. It makes no sense. You're mixing metaphors here in a very loose way. What does it mean for meaning to be "within" something? What is an "overall space"? >RM+NS IS being used to claim nearly everything about us. Why do we feel love? Well, love is a brain chemical that causes an illusion to fool people into thinking they’re feeling “love”, this is based on RM+NS as a adaptation that leads to more and better reproduction. These terms are certainly used in all sorts of ways, some of them illegitimate, but so what? Do these broader, looser meanings somehow invalidate the narrower usage? For instance, if we're talking about what constitutes a "move" in chess, could I argue that because "move" is also used to refer to what the ground is doing during an earthquake that this invalidates your idea about what a "move" is in the game? Could I argue that shaking the board also constitutes a legal "move"?Gary Glass
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT
SETI is indeed looking for signals that show they're designed...that they're truly from SOMEONE or SOMETHING intelligent. SETI is searching for something we've never seen or heard. If someone digs something up and it's something no human has ever seen (unlike arrowheads), we can infer it was designed or not. It needn't be something we have examples of. The first person to ever find an arrowhead couldn't have used that argument. Stonehenge is something of the likes we've never seen, but it's obvious that it's designed, tho we know NOTHING of who could have built it, what they were like, how they built it...really nothing at all about any of it besides the fact that it is clearly the result of an intelligent cause. If life is totally meaningless, which means the universe is as well- how can ANYTHING have meaning? You cannot have meaning within an overall space that is devoid of any meaning. It makes no sense. RM+NS IS being used to claim nearly everything about us. Why do we feel love? Well, love is a brain chemical that causes an illusion to fool people into thinking they're feeling "love", this is based on RM+NS as a adaptation that leads to more and better reproduction. Why do men rape? Well, Thornhill and his partner claim that RM+NS lead to this behavior sometime in the past. A growing number of men and women out there are claiming that evolution, in the mere sense of biological evolution explains EVERYTHING -(EO Wilson comes to mind, Dawkins, Thornhill, Provine, and others- all claim life is meaningless and pointless and that bioevo is what lets us know this. Dawkins comment was for adults to just realize it and get over it.) Why altruism? Well, RM+NS acted to cause behavior that lead to this to help the species. The humans are the only ones that show true univeral altruism. They did a recent experiment where chimps were in one room and an actor in a chimp suit was in another...there were two levers. One pulled let the chimp only have food. The other let BOTH have food. There was no gain to anyone here but the one being allowed food by the one controlling the lever. They found that the chimps were, most of the time, selfish and showed no altruism in this regard at all. They switched it up and changed positions...even when one chimp begged for food, the other was selfish and continued to pull the lever not allowing the other to have any food (when we had 2 real chimps.) Just one example of research that contradicts the claims that chimps are altruistic and even remotely close to the way humans are. Darwinists, now days, love to claim every human emotion, behavior, action as the result of biological evolution. We're even into new claims that religion is a selected adaptation- tho religion, usually, teaches that we should wait for marriage and only marry once before we have children, which sort of kills the idea of spreading your seed as far and wide as you can, so you think this notion would have been selected out and never 'selected' in to begin with- tho, I should note that natural selection doesn't really "select" for anything- selection takes intelligence, purpose, and planning.jboze3131
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
>How long do you suppose we look for purely materialistic causes before we’re allowed to conclude, scientifically, that something was designed? With this logic- the phrase would FOREVER be “we need more time”, “a bit more time, and we will fill in the massive gaps”, etc. Design would never be allowed in because the committment to dogma. What are you seeking a cause for? Speciation? If so, then evolution is the "purely materialistic" explanation. So what more are we looking for? >And, sorry to say- evolution has become a word used to describe EVERYTHING, from speciation, to what “love is”, to why we rescue kittens from burning buildings, from every human emotion, behavior, action, etc. What’s the most common response? ‘It was selected for, because it helped humans survive and better reproduce, the end.’ THAT isn’t science either- it’s an easy, lazy, catch-all for everything. The word "Evolution" has become a part of the vernacular. It's used in many different ways, including metaphorically. But what we're talking about here (I think) is, specifically, biological evolution: natural selection of random mutations as an account of speciation. >THAT is the sort of thinking that leads to laziness and hinders scientific discovery. The biggest problem is- if we live in a truly meaningless and pointless world as a great many darwinists claim- how can we ever trust ANYTHING any of us say, let alone trust science itself? Evolution is not looking for meaning. The search for meaning is noble endeavor in its own right, but it's not what biology is about. > The same goes for ANY branch of knowledge, any avenue that might lead us to knowledge, truth, etc. If we truly live in a meaningless world, as many propose- science itself and everything other topic in history is also meaningless. You cannot have meaning within a system that is, itself, totally meaningless. Addressing the philosophical issue aside from biological evolution: I think your conclusion is going to be hard to support. >If there’s no way to establish what is designed and what isn’t, then we need to scrap SETI. We need to fire all the archaeologists and many others in similar fields. We need to do away with forensics as a science, and much much more. SETI is not about discovering design. It's about discovering artificial signals. Archaeologists are looking for design either. They're looking for artificial artifacts. We know that an arrowhead is artifical not because we recognize some property of "designedness" in it, but because we have seen arrowheads before. SETI is about looking for intelligence. And I'm not looking for any more comments from you. Hasta la vista, baby. -ds Gary Glass
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
>It should be noted that CSI, the NFL theorems, and others deal with design in an objective manner and a way to decipher between objects that are and are not designed. Has this actually been done? Have these theorems actually been applied to anything to determine whether or not it is "designed"?Gary Glass
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
It should be noted that CSI, the NFL theorems, and others deal with design in an objective manner and a way to decipher between objects that are and are not designed.jboze3131
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
How long do you suppose we look for purely materialistic causes before we're allowed to conclude, scientifically, that something was designed? With this logic- the phrase would FOREVER be "we need more time", "a bit more time, and we will fill in the massive gaps", etc. Design would never be allowed in because the committment to dogma. And, sorry to say- evolution has become a word used to describe EVERYTHING, from speciation, to what "love is", to why we rescue kittens from burning buildings, from every human emotion, behavior, action, etc. What's the most common response? 'It was selected for, because it helped humans survive and better reproduce, the end.' THAT isn't science either- it's an easy, lazy, catch-all for everything. THAT is the sort of thinking that leads to laziness and hinders scientific discovery. The biggest problem is- if we live in a truly meaningless and pointless world as a great many darwinists claim- how can we ever trust ANYTHING any of us say, let alone trust science itself? The same goes for ANY branch of knowledge, any avenue that might lead us to knowledge, truth, etc. If we truly live in a meaningless world, as many propose- science itself and everything other topic in history is also meaningless. You cannot have meaning within a system that is, itself, totally meaningless. If there's no way to establish what is designed and what isn't, then we need to scrap SETI. We need to fire all the archaeologists and many others in similar fields. We need to do away with forensics as a science, and much much more.jboze3131
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
I think Gary Glass makes a very good point in that any criterion used to distinguish design from non-design must be analytical and objective. A personal view on the appearance of design is not good criteria. Crandaddy, I'm curious, what characteristics of the human brain versus a chimpanzee brain (including their development, genes involved, etc) suggest that the human brain was designed apart from other apes? Or are the characteristics you focus on the more distant consequences of the way the brains are constructed, such as the technologies invented by many of them over time? I mentioned honeybees earlier, but perhaps the way that subterranean termites construct their homes are a better example of how complexity of design can come from simple beginnings. They use very simple rules, and the end result is arches, ventilation shafts, and insect skyscrapers. I'm interested in whether or not unique human cognitive abilities, such as high intelligence, ability to grasp abstract concepts, and hold beliefs not conducive to survival and reproduction could have evolved without intelligent intervention.--CrandaddyInoculated Mind
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply