On Science, Improbability and Design

Originally posted by RJHinds
To Twhitehead:

So you are saying that modern science believes
creatures that can move came before plants
which can not move? Plants in the sea does not
make them creatures because creatures move
and plants don't move by their own power. If
you have a scientific reference for this, what is it,
because I would like to look it up.

RJHinds

Maybe creature was the wrong word. It is not well defined anyway.
And by the way, some plants can move by their own power.

Nevertheless, there were bacteria and archaea for 2 billion years before plants, thus your claim that 'plants came first' is false.

And it is quite clear that bird were not the first 'creatures' on dry ground.

The fact is that you have about five 'groups' of life which are hardly descriptive of the various life forms in existence, and you claim that they appeared in the order given, and that science agrees with that order. The chance of getting that list right is actually quite high yet it nevertheless gets some wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Sorry, I didn't read this before my last reply.

Science says first came single celled creatures (not plants), then a long chain of more and more complex life including far more than is in your list.
The very first plants were probably in the sea, so that creates a bit of a problem as they are 'sea creatures'.

The dinosaurs and many other land mamma ...[text shortened]... e are new species appearing all the time, some since man.

So no, the two do not match.

I suppose RJHinds means that Man was the best of the lot,the final result among the living beings created by God.
Whatever RJHinds might have meant, you will agree that Man is the most highly evolved intelligent being.
I will be glad to know from you i) why was it necessary for more and more complex beings with higher and higher levels of intelligence to evolve when the simpler forms were quite adept at survival.Cockroaches have survived millions of years. ii)We are told that,in Man,the developed level of Intelligence although very high compared to other beings is nothing,if one sees the tremendous potential of the human brain.We are told that humans hardly use 10 % of their brain power.If this is correct then why did such unnecessarily high power brain evolve? iii) We now see that Man is delving deeper and deeper into his hidden self i.e. going into Metaphysical questions and in general being tremendously curious about so many basic issues like the nature of Reality,the vastness of this and other universes,the origin of life etc. Why is this intellectual curiosity ? Is it necessary from evolutionary point of view ?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Whatever RJHinds might have meant, you will agree that Man is the most highly evolved intelligent being.

Most intelligent, yes, most highly evolved, no.

I will be glad to know from you i) why was it necessary for more and more complex beings with higher and higher levels of intelligence to evolve when the simpler forms were quite adept at survival.
It wasn't / isn't 'necessary'.

Cockroaches have survived millions of years. ii)We are told that,in Man,the developed level of Intelligence although very high compared to other beings is nothing,if one sees the tremendous potential of the human brain.We are told that humans hardly use 10 % of their brain power.If this is correct then why did such unnecessarily high power brain evolve?
Presumably, if we only use 10% of our brains, then we need such big brains so that we can at least function with the 10/%.
If you are asking why we only use 10%, then I will need to know more about where that claim comes from and what it really means.
I might also add an analogy: We only use 10% of the food we eat, and cars only use 10% of the energy stored in the fuel they use.

iii) We now see that Man is delving deeper and deeper into his hidden self i.e. going into Metaphysical questions and in general being tremendously curious about so many basic issues like the nature of Reality,the vastness of this and other universes,the origin of life etc. Why is this intellectual curiosity ? Is it necessary from evolutionary point of view ?
Yes, it is necessary from an evolutionary point of view. Curiosity is essential to learning - and exists in almost all intelligent animals. Ever heard the phrase "curiosity killed the cat"? Even cats are curious.

Originally posted by David C
They do? It is? Might want to double check.

...and for the record, "panspermia" is the hypothesis that life exists elsewhere in the universe and may be distributed by comets or meteoroids. No X-files explanation necessary.

I personally do not have any difficulty with the panspermia theory, and think it possible. However, this, like the fundamentalist creationist vs evolution discussion (if you can call it that) only puts the question one step back. Wherever life in cellular form originated, how so? It would be a helpful advancement of human scientific thinking beyond the scenarios being put forth by reductionist science, some as equally unbelievable as the fundamentalist "God" popping it out already formed?

Why is the postulation of a infinite ineffable, (and unproveable scientifically) awareness or consciousness as "Ground of all Being" so offensive? Why can it not be fully included as a respectable postulation, one that (divorced from fundamenatlist creationism) would help resolve many enigmas of the emergence of life, such as how higly complex molecules just "happen" to come together, that fit other highly complex molecules that also just "happened" to come together, but which just "happen" to fit exactly the need of the whole? An underlying "awareness field" would explain it immediately and much better than some of the other postulations.

The immediate approbrium of some scientists of such a view makes me feel they are responding to an excess fear of the arguing and irrational fundamentalist creationists ideas. Let respectable science meet with respectable philosophical and religious viewpoints instead of the obsession with obviously unscientific ratbag ideas.

Originally posted by Taoman
I personally do not have any difficulty with the panspermia theory, and think it possible. However, this, like the fundamentalist creationist vs evolution discussion (if you can call it that) only puts the question one step back. Wherever life in cellular form originated, how so? It would be a helpful advancement of human scientific thinking beyond the scenar ...[text shortened]... igious viewpoints instead of the obsession with obviously unscientific ratbag ideas.

A beautiful post, truly beautiful!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Most intelligent, yes, most highly evolved, no.

[b]I will be glad to know from you i) why was it necessary for more and more complex beings with higher and higher levels of intelligence to evolve when the simpler forms were quite adept at survival.
It wasn't / isn't 'necessary'.

Cockroaches have survived millions of years. ii)We are told th ...[text shortened]... elligent animals. Ever heard the phrase "curiosity killed the cat"? Even cats are curious.

I will take your replies in reverse order,if you please.
iii) Why is learning about complex metaphysical questions necessary for the human being at this stage from the Evolution point of view ? Humans have evolved enough,I thought. Has Evolutionary Process a discernible aim or is it " just the way it has taken place"?If survival of the fittest was an "aim " has it not been achieved by humans ? Then why learn evermore ? or it is" just the way it evolves" ?
ii)Your answer to the 10% question is a circular argument. Moreover 10 % seems to be not so efficient in an otherwise impeccably well designed product crafted by Evolution. I thought Evolution was an efficient process.
i)The Evolutionary Process has led to more and more complex beings with better and better intelligence. So I thought that the process is driven towards ensuring a form of life which will not only survive but be better enabled to tackle if not understand the vast and mostly hostile universe around it. But you think it is just the way it has evolved,no questions permitted.

Originally posted by Taoman
Why is the postulation of a infinite ineffable, (and unproveable scientifically) awareness or consciousness as "Ground of all Being" so offensive?

It is not offensive. It is just not useful. It doesn't, as you suggest, answer any real questions. It attempts to hide them (just as most of theism does).

Why can it not be fully included as a respectable postulation,
I don't see why it can't. But to get it beyond postulation is another matter altogether, and so far, you haven't.

such as how higly complex molecules just "happen" to come together, that fit other highly complex molecules that also just "happened" to come together, but which just "happen" to fit exactly the need of the whole?
If you had been paying attention to the thread so far, you would know that this is a strawman. If your postulation requires strawmen and bad statistics to support, then there is something wrong with your postulation.

An underlying "awareness field" would explain it immediately and much better than some of the other postulations.
What are the 'other postulations'? Where are their failings? Why would an underlying "awareness field" do better than any other process?

The immediate approbrium of some scientists of such a view makes me feel they are responding to an excess fear of the arguing and irrational fundamentalist creationists ideas. Let respectable science meet with respectable philosophical and religious viewpoints instead of the obsession with obviously unscientific ratbag ideas.
So you admit that it is a 'religious viewpoint' and not a scientific postulation. The reason scientist take such a view is they realize the error of starting with a desired result then trying to make the facts fit the result (as you are doing). There really is nothing wrong with examining it as a possibility, but when it is clear that it doesn't work, it must be abandoned rather than trying to use strawmen and other bad reasoning to support it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
A beautiful post, truly beautiful!

But he said you had 'irrational fundamentalist creationists ideas'?!

Originally posted by JS357
Then you are a supernaturalist? How does that differ from a theist? Not that there's anything wrong with being a theist, I am just trying to understand.

Not mad about that word myself. It is used by the good Rabbi, but the general point is well put I feel. The sheer holistic complexity of life's emergence to me needs some sort of holistic awareness to explain it to me.

'Supernatural" as a word is too dualistic to me. It portrays a something or somebody outside or above nature and, as you point out, theistic in nature. I have tried to explain my position in the preamble. The main point to me is untying from irrational creationist viewpoints and considering some sort of holistic and embracing awarenss as a contribution to trying to explain such things as how highly complex processes and molecules of the early cellular life all happened to come together as a unity, at the same time, in the right order for a living cell or prebiotic structure to kick off.
The immense improbability of such a thing is even more improbable without some holistic "awareness field", "mind, or call it what you will.
There are other indications of such a field in nature, but it gets too complex here.

As to design I think the "designs" emerged itself, in concert with chaotic and chance mutations as well. It is self-emergent in my understanding.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
But he said you had 'irrational fundamentalist creationists ideas'?!

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Robbie will grab on to anything if it is against evolution because he believes evolution = materialism = pure evil.

Originally posted by Taoman
The sheer holistic complexity of life's emergence to me needs some sort of holistic awareness to explain it to me.

Do you feel this way about all complexity?
Have you, for example, seen the MandelBro set? Do you feel that its sheer complexity also requires 'some sort of holistic awareness'? If not, then why the exception? If so, then why not stick with that instead of strawmen regarding the origin of life?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Robbie will grab on to anything if it is against evolution because he believes evolution = materialism = pure evil.

But as i understand it, Taoman accepts evolution.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I suppose RJHinds means that Man was the best of the lot,the final result among the living beings created by God.
Whatever RJHinds might have meant, you will agree that Man is the most highly evolved intelligent being.
I will be glad to know from you i) why was it necessary for more and more complex beings with higher and higher levels of intelligence ...[text shortened]... life etc. Why is this intellectual curiosity ? Is it necessary from evolutionary point of view ?

Whatever RJHinds might have meant, you will agree that Man is the most highly evolved intelligent being.

I would agree that we are the most intelligent being on the planet, but the most "highly evolved"? What does that even mean?

<edit>Just seen that TWhitehead has already responded. Please ignore as the conversation has moved on.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
But he said you had 'irrational fundamentalist creationists ideas'?!

yes, but Toaman was referring to the prevalent scientific point of view with respect to creationists, he also stated of the very same community, 'obsession with obviously unscientific ratbag ideas', beautifully phrased i thought!

Originally posted by souverein
Thanks Taoman I very much liked the way you described reality It is close to my own root experiences. You call it a form of monistic idealism. Maybe pantheistic would get close to how you described your perception of being. All and everything is pervaded and intrinsically part of a divine wholeness, but can manifest itself in separate entities.

The arti ...[text shortened]... . But still quite probable there is more (and higher) intelligent life in other universes.

The chances increase exponentially if you postulate some form of Ground Awareness underlying the emergence of life that appears required in cellular holistic processes.

It cannot be proven by its very nature, but it can be a reasoned postulation that is an equal or better one to some sceintific theories that are quite way out there, to say the least.

Pantheism or panenthiesm have similar stances and the meaning of the usual common understanding of the word "God" significantly shifts. To me, they are all solid "takes" on it all.