Home
» Intelligent Design » Are the Inner Workings of Mankind Really All Monkey Business?
Are the Inner Workings of Mankind Really All Monkey Business?
| January 14, 2006 | Posted by crandaddy under Intelligent Design |
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.
52 Responses to Are the Inner Workings of Mankind Really All Monkey Business?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“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?
[...] 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. [...]
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.
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, 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?
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.
>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?
Hi Gary,
You can get the details here:
http://www.ideacenter.org/cont.....hp/id/1146
http://www.ideacenter.org/cont.....php/id/839
http://www.designinference.com.....rigins.pdf
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.
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,
Karl
>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?
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?
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.
-ds
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.
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. -ds
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/cont.....hp/id/1146
http://www.ideacenter.org/cont.....php/id/839
http://www.designinference.com.....rigins.pdf
>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!
The case was cited in the article that originally began this thread has been settled.
http://www.au.org/site/News2?p.....38;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.â€Â
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…
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.â€Â
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.â€Â
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?â€Â
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?â€Â
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.â€Â, 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.
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.
Karl
[...] 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 [...]