Intelligent Design

Well, now you've just redefined the word "blueprint" to mean "law of physics". Similarly, there is a blueprint for why objects fall if you drop them, or for why iron filings are attracted to a magnet.

barfo

 

This is the Special Universe. Every heavenly body is a winner.

barfo

 

There are laws, like if you nail two pieces of wood together you join them together. From a blueprint you build a house or whatever from the wood and nails.

The law says you can join two atoms together based upon their valences. From a blueprint you build a water molecule from the atoms and valences.

 

I'm not sure where you are going with this. If you want to define the set of physical laws as a blueprint, then go ahead, I guess. I don't think that choice of words makes intelligent design any more compelling.

barfo

 

I'm not suggesting a designer. That science seems to apply evolution to things like the sun, the solar system, the universe, the earth, etc.

Here's a good example:
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/advanced/stars_birth.html (birth of a star)
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/advanced/cosmos_death.html (death of the universe)

A star isn't alive, so it can't be born. The universe isn't alive, so it can't die.

This site talks about the evolution of the solar system:
http://www.physics.uc.edu/~sitko/Spring00/7-Solsysform/solsysform.html

 

So...my car isn't alive so it can't die?

Sounds like a semantic argument. Plus, "God" isn't alive, so he can't be born (or die).

 

Still not clear what you mean. Birth and death aren't evolution. In Shooter's world (oblong, 2 frozen moons), there is no evolution, but people are still born (or stillborn) and they still die.

Birth and death are metaphors as applied to stars and such, I don't think anyone thinks that stars are born in the same way as mammals. Do they?

barfo

 

That might be his point, but if so I don't see the point of his point.

If we assume that forming water is just like building a house, where does that get us?

barfo

 

It's not exactly semantics, but more of an analogy. To use your words, all that's missing is the semantic DNA.

 

I think the last link is the key to my point. It's about evolution being applied to things that aren't alive.

 

I don't think it is. It is true that the page is titled "FORMATION AND EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM" but it doesn't discuss anything like biological evolution, just the history of the solar system. And I'm pretty sure they meant evolution in the more general sense of development.

barfo

 

The wikipedia page on evolution talks about how it's a mistake to confuse the colloquial meaning of the word with the biological use of the term. However, I am not confusing the two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_(term)

However, the word has a number of different meanings in different fields, from evolutionary computation to chemical evolution to sociocultural evolution to stellar and galactic evolution. It can even refer to metaphysical evolution, spiritual evolution, or any of a number of evolutionist philosophies.

And specifically:

In colloquial contexts, evolution can refer to any sort of progressive development, and often bears a connotation of gradual improvement: evolution is understood as a process that results in greater quality or complexity.

Now, I find the wikipedia page flawed because they suggest that devolution is not improvement, yet in the biological sense if devolution means survival, it actually is improvement.

The first bit I quoted is very much my point - science calls it all evolution, it's a form of impression - putting the inanimate things in the same context as the live things.

It may be a natural thing for people to do that sort of thing because it agrees with our experience as individuals and through history.

 

I'm not suggesting there's any harm at all. Just that all that's missing is applying the concept of DNA (the intelligence, the blueprint, the carrier in the stepwise progression that is evolution).

 

So your point is that we use words to mean different things in different contexts?

I certainly can't disagree with that.

And yes, it is natural for humans to analogize.

Are you saying these linguistic observations are good, bad, or what?

barfo

 

Rather than ascribe intelligence to non-biological evolution, I'd be more inclined to point out there is no intelligence in biological evolution. There isn't some master plan (sorry Shooter). There are just a bunch of individuals fighting to survive and some of them do and some don't.

barfo

 

I just had to respond to this one.

What he wrote is pretty much how I see it. Though we're smarter than every other animal on the planet, simply because we at least know what a calendar is and what time means.

 

Where have I ascribed intelligence to any of this? I've ascribed design to it.

 

barfo