Intelligent Design versus Natural Selection

Re: # 1
Hmmmm, Wouldn`t that invalidate the whole idea of Adam and Eve?

Why cannot GOD use natural selection to create humans? I think that is what GOD did.

Regards.

Re: # 3
It is very easy for you, me and all the other people who are not people of the book ( Jews, Christians and Muslims). Most of the opposition to the theory of evolution comes from Jews, Christians, and Muslims who believe in Adam & Eve. When you ask why God cannot use natural creation to create humans, you are essentially talking about a God different from the God who supposedly sent down the Prophets and holy books. All the people who are talking about intelligent design etc are just trying to justify their beliefs. So they will not deviate from what is already written in their books. So even if you and me start believing that God has created man using natural selection, there will be whole lot of people who will still believe in Adam and Eve.

Why does God need any kind of natural selection or 6 days to create the universe as he is all powerful, all knowing. Couldn`t he have created this whole universe with in a fraction of second or what ever smallest possible unit of time?

PS:
I do not mean any disrespect for any religion in my posts, these are just random thoughts and only for the sake of discussion.

Why should one need to start by believing in adam & eve. Why not start with nothing and see what seems more plausible.

the Bible says that God rested on the seventh day. Since man was created in Godly image,


The genesis account isn`t meant to be interpreted literally....god created light before he created the sun and the stars?


is only marginally different genetically from a chimp. They interpret this result as transformation of a chimp mutant into a human, over a period of thousands and thousands of years.


chimps didn`t evolve into humans...both chimps and humans have evolved from a common ancestor...


On this basis, they claim the creationist science should be allocated equal time in school curricula.


I believe humans were created by aliens....there`s more proof for the existence of aliens than for god...why shouldn`t that be taught in schools while we`re including wild-assed guesses along with solid science(like evolution)....

Re: # 6

read the rig/yajur for this (the upanishads have something more detailed). The concept is one of a primordial soup in some sense from where we have all evolved. Dont startassumng that they are talking of evolution in the sense we know today.

for example try reading the Works of Vivekananda - they are more accesible - here is osmething might inerest you

From the lowest protoplasm to the most perfect human being there is really but one life. Just as in one life we have so many various phases of expression, the protoplasm developing into the baby, the child, the young man, the old man, so, from that protoplasm up to the most perfect man we get one continuous life, one chain. This is evolution, but we have seen that each evolution presupposes an involution. The whole of this life which slowly manifests itself evolves itself from the protoplasm to the perfected human being

---

the Incarnation of God on earth the whole of this series is but one life, and the whole of this manifestation must have been involved in that very protoplasm. This whole life, this very God on earth, was involved in it and slowly came out, manifesting itself slowly, slowly, slowly. (Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol. II, p. 228)




purnamadah purnamidam purnaat purnamudachyate
purnasya purnaamadaya purnameva vashishyate.

Its amazing how people who are not of the book know about adam and eve but dont know much about human creation in hinduism (including me). I would like to know what hinduism say about it.
For me to think that GOD uses natural selection is because the amount of role nature plays in our life and death e.g. tsunami, earthquake, volcanos, flood & famine.

Also, same as #4:
PS:
I do not mean any disrespect for any religion in my posts, these are just random thoughts and only for the sake of discussion.

Re: # 7

Thanks to you and Gill for the the valuable information contained here. BUt as usual this article will not generate the ferocity of interatcs other appear to do on Chowk. Nonetheless, the saying too many cooks....is apt here..

from my understanding - natural selection is another subtle variant of mutation. Natures tries out diferent strategies - mutations to see which works and pick a strategywhich works. All those which dont work aredroppped or dead or mutate further. Hence the idea that all of mammals evolved from a vole (sp???) like creature after the destruction ofthe dinosaurs. The vareity of environments that these voles existed in requiredthem to specilise and mutate accodingly. Thus the genetic difference between the cow and the human is small (a few changes in the words and we could be having horns and hooves).

Where the variation is big is when we move from Mammals to other forms. At the end of the day allforms of life on earth are HC based with the same set of protiens connected up differently.

There was an experiement sometime back which generated the basic aminoacids.
I guess we have all seen those charged glass lamps - . They filled this glob with what is considered to be the primordial soup and let the charge generate lighteing inside the glob. Sort of early eath atmosphere was generated there. When the matter inside the glob was analysed it was found that amino-acids were found there. (think it was a guycalled jerath in the US who did this).


SR has however, pointed out some of the questions. However, could it be argued that Humans have evolved to the limit of their abilities with the current form of genetic structure and that a mutation is required for further growth. Hence the chimp example. Where it is not retardation but really simply a matter of some form a mutation in order to be able to cope with changes in environment. (I am no expert herebut very very lay and have no clue as to what I am saying!)

Gill sahib, thanx for yet another stimulating topic. The archives of Chowk.com have a few more articles of a similar theme. I hope this article will generate a good discussion.

It`s too late in my time zone, and I`ve just returned from overseas travel, so I cannot go in much detail, but let me just say that the gaping holes in the Darwinian model need to be acknowledged and explored rather than be stubbornly defended as is usually seen done. This makes the evolutionist look just as prejudiced in his attitude as the creationist and the cause of science and free enquiry is ill served.

The famous textbook example of the pigmented moth, for instance, turns out to be something of a fake (details later) and yet it is touted around as the definitive evidence of natural selection... This undermines the credibility of the whole scientific model and the debate gets muddy.

Similarly, the knee-jerk revulsion that neo-Darwinists demonstrate at the very mention of the Lamarkian concept of ``effect of environment, adaptation, and transformation of characteristics`` argument as opposed to (or even in addition to) their cherished argument of over-production, random mutation, and natural selection leads one to wonder why there is such dogmatic intransigence among supposedly open minded scientists?

If one accepts Steve Gould`s ``ontogeny traces philogeny argument, then it would generally follow that the adult would be the more advanced (or evolved) specimen of a species than its young. Thus if we were to compare human to the chimp and looked at the location of the foramen ovale in the skull cavity we would notice that the baby chimp`s skull is much more like that of a human than the adult chip. Would it not then be prudent to argue that indeed the chimp is evolved from the human rather than vice versa? :-)

Furthermore, the more highly specialized in a certain function, the more advanced (or evolved) the organism. If this logic is applied to such indices as the relative size of the RBCs, the alveolar surface area to body mass ratio, the concentration of urine function of the kidneys, to name just a few and compare the human to the other primates, one is compelled to acknowledge that the human shows signs of evolutionary retardation that cannot be explained by the natural selection model.

There are many, many more pitfalls, but I will keep it brief for the moment and await your input.

...SR

SR:

Thanks for your post.

One important point that I tried to make in the essay was that although theory of natural selection has been quite successful in explaining the evolutionary processes, it has not yet produced a compelling evidence in support of macroevolution which would silence the harsh criticism to which it is subjected. The theory of natural selection is still unfolding. One point in its favor is that many of its critics who are biologists have accepted that it is a constructive theory. I had quoted one example in the essay; there are many others. Many of the theistic evolutionists are scientists.

If I understand correctly, the evolution is a two step process, namely, mutation and natural selection. Mutation is caused by genes (genotype) and natural selection is due to acquired characteristics and other factors (phenotype). Mutation is a random process and natural selection is directed.

Natural selection is thus a mechanism that controls and explains the evolution of a lower type into a higher type. A mutation different from the parent species occurs randomly and it is only slightly different from the parent species. Such a mutation has a low probability but it does occur. The mechanism of natural selection helps it on its way to accumulate suitable characteristics (by a slow process) and it might differentiate into a new species over a long period of time.

The question of chimps evolving from humans is probably unlikely because chimps were an earlier species than the homo sapiens.

With regards,

Mohammad Gill

While using the term ``Intelligent Design vs Evolution``, the article misses I think a the significance of the term ``intelligent design`` itself. When the original Scopes trial took place in the 1920`s, and until perhaps a few years ago, the debate was in terms of ``Creationism vs Evolution``. The mountain of evidence that has been accumulated (which includes, among other things, the actual observation of mutations of the HIV virus e.g. over the past couple of decades) makes this ``theory`` as irrefutable today as the ``theory`` of the earth being round.

This switch has in effect changed the nature of the debate from ``If`` evolution took place, to ``How`` it took place. In other words, the original ``Creationism vs Evolution`` concept has been given up even by the religious right in favor of a more defensible strategy. And it is indeed true that the ``how`` is not completely understood, although some speculation has been made (e.g. that it is the genes themselves that are the true generals in the ``survival of the fittest``, and bodies are mere mechanisms through which they conduct this struggle).

Trouble with this switch is: it continues to confuse people into thinking that there is still a question of the ``If`` (as reflected in this article as well), when in fact the creationist approach has effectively been discarded by the creationists themselves!!

Thanks, Gill sahib, for continuing to write in this fascinating area of science. The quality of the posts below is also high.

Why can`t this bickering be settled using democratic principle: all those who think that their momies and dadies are monkeys, please raise hands.

This is essentially a futile debate. The quest for knowledge and the quest for spiritual salvation take place along different dimensions. People who are scientists, by definition, must always be able to question with an open mind. People of faith, must accept certain postulates without questions, because “it is written”. In a debate between the two, each side will score point after point in its own dimension, paying scant attention that it is still making a zero gain from the opponent’s viewpoint.

The spirit of objective scientific enquiry is the farthest thing from the minds of the proponents of “natural design” (which in my view is the new, improved reincarnation of the “science of creation”) and other such theories. These proponents don’t really care if the theory is scientifically sound, they want to ensure that the faith itself never gets questioned, directly or indirectly. This is not a new phenomenon. For example, the fact that evolution had widespread support among scientists did not stop the state of Tennessee from prosecuting and convicting John Stokes in 1925 (the monkey trial). Ever further back, it did not prevent the Roman Catholic church from prosecuting Galileo (1632) for proposing that the sun was not stationary.

The bottom-line is: when established religion perceives a threat to itself (no matter how remote and indirect) from any publications, lectures, teachings, or even random expressions of free speech (e.g., Taslima Nasrin, Rushdie, etc.) it treats it as an assault on its basic reason for existence and pulls no punches in fighting back. Intellectuals may consider such a knee-jerk reaction foolish, but unfortunately, smart people are vastly outnumbered by the other kind.

(Disclaimer: Before I cause serious and long-lasting injury to feelings of any chowkies because of the statement I just concluded above, I hasten to add that there are at least two very smart people on this site: one is the writer of these lines, and the other of course, is you… the reader of those lines. Happy now?!)

15 answers to creationists` non-sense, from scientific american:
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588
EEDF

BeeJay: you were doing fine till the end when you starting joking about the writer being smart and so forth. Gill does an admirable service by writing on matters related to science, and thus adding an important dimension to chowk discussions. He deserves better than being joked at.

To rile our grandmother up, we used to say ``...Aseen aj school ch pur kay aaye, kay saaday daaday purdaaday day agaan purkh Bandar Si....`` She would respond, ``Eho jehiaan kitaaban nu ag laa daini chaee di ey....``

(We learned in school that our forefathers were monkeys, she would rspnd - to hell with such books, they should be reduced to ashes)


On a serious note the theory of Natural Selection is applied daily. The phenomena of natural and selection and survival of fittest manifests daily before our eyes. To what extent is this theory taken as a fact is debatable.