but it would have been better if i better understood how clocks work
Well, the pendulum swings back and forth, shifting the gears around with that orange thing on the top, add gears for more accurate measurement, and springs for more endurance. (I think thats atleast somewhat accurate) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_clock
ps: this is SO awesome. I love evolution simulations. The "light-sensitive patch" to "fully functional eye" is cool, this is even cooler. I would love to play with this sort of thing- fiddling with the parameters, etc. Awesome.
the only problem with evolution (and I have no problem with IT)is that you substitute it, as this video implies, with a theory for the origin of life. And the only problem I see is that people use the term evolution to mean a proces of change which has a direction - i.e. more and more complex forms of life.
Etymology and historical meaning
The word stems from the Latin term evolutio meaning "unfolding" and prior to the late 1800s was confined to referring to goal-directed, pre-programmed processes such as embryological development. A pre-programmed task, as in a military maneuver, using this definition, may be termed an "evolution." By the 20th century, the dominant concept associated with the word "evolution" was biological evolution, which had originally been known as "transmutation."
Interesting. I believe that evolution is a tool that diety uses to "create" whatever it is they are creating. I've not met anybody else that believes that. At any rate, it's the only theory I know of that allows you to believe in both evolution, natural selection, and creationism(sp?) simultaniously. =) Interesting video though...
The video assumes, in this "scientific" experiment, that the Clock organisms have but one action function. Name any organism that excersizes a single function like that of telling time. Exclusively, the clocks evolved on the sole basis of their ability to tell time. This is not an argument for evolution, not even close to a proof. Heck i believe in evolution, but this argument solely serves to abdicate the 'survival of the fittest' mantra, which in my opinion even if you are an atheist is an idiotic theory to apply to humankind and many other species. A lot of wasted work to prove the wrong point. Furthermore, the survival of the fittest mantra applies to the universe ONLY in temporal isolated circumstances. (unless you are a Nazi) So i take it back, the video was not completely useless, it demonstrates an aspect of creation that is indisputably true, but fails to properly label it.
Q & A section:
Why do we not look at nature and see cats that have evolved into floating mouths?
BECAUSE THEY DID NOT EVOLVE WITH A SINGULAR FUNCTION. ------------------------------
Finally, note to all atheists: Any Christian who argues evolution as being impossible, is a neo-conservative redneck, and frankly, should be ignored. I know couple and they piss the hell out of me and are a misrepresentation of Christian scientific theology.
The video assumes, in this "scientific" experiment, that the Clock organisms have but one action function.
The main problem with that is the exact same issue addressed in the video. We're only assuming what the creationists come up with in their argument, nothing more, nothing less.
Wonderfully interesting, but it actually makes the case for ID instead of evolution. Think about it -- the code has a teleological goal set to make clocks. As the machines evolve, they will always eventually end up as people (sorry, clocks) even though the underlying processes appear to be random. While it is an amazing bit of hacking, sorry, you just shot yourself in the foot by showing exactly how ID could proceed -- a designer of some sort setting a teleological goal and then letting evolution reach the goal.
For the other posters, please remember that ID != Creationism. Creationism is the literal belief in the Genesis account of the Bible, which ID certainly is not.
ShakaUVM- i think the principle you're reaching for, the one you've almost but not quite grasped hold of, is what is referred to as natural selection. Not ID. Once you have genes that replicate, the "goal" is to have genes that replicate better.
Fortunately for us, one of the best ways for genes is to encode information about their surroundings. The better an organism fits in its surroundings, the better its chances of passing on its genes. The god, or designer you're looking for is simulacra, or information-encoding. Starting with the beginning of life, the story of this planet has been the accumulation of information- the creation of more and more specific models of the "real world". A polar bear is white because he lives in a white landscape and can hunt better, giraffes have long necks to reach tall leaves, etc etc etc.
The rate of acceleration has increased even further as one species has learned how to encode information in non-dna form- by building tools, and eventually specifically through spoken and written language, religions, etc- and finally the scientific method.
We are witnessing the end of the era of dna dominated information encoding. So far our technology has a better QUALITY of information about the universe than is encoded in the DNA of the species of the earth, but a much lower quantity. This will change dramatically in our lifetimes.
So yes, there is a "force". The force is natural, not supernatural. And it drives the processes that we think of as human endeavor, but are really just continuation of the progress that began when the first strand of RNA drove the synthesis of the first enzymes that made the first protein in the first lifeform on our planet.
but this argument solely serves to abdicate the 'survival of the fittest' mantra, which in my opinion even if you are an atheist is an idiotic theory to apply to humankind and many other species
You've got to be kidding me, thats the whole point of natural selection, the animals who fits best into the environment, tend to be the ones who survives, so statistically the fittest survive. Sure enough, with modern medicine we can do miracles as they say, but still a baby born with a perfectly good heart, naturally has better odds at surviving, and thus reproducing than a baby with a severe heart condition, even if you count in all those that are saved by doctors etc, the statistical results will show the same trend.
Thats how natural selection works, the environment does the selecting. And it does work everywhere, not just in "temporal isolated circumstances" or else we would not be here. Ofcourse there are always much more factors involved than you can possibly come up with in a simple simulation (or even a very complex one) but the basic premise is the same
Based on the limitations of science in an unlimited universe, it is equally foolish to declare, "There is no God" with anything approaching certainty.
Good thing then that the video you downvoted before watching, has no mention of God's non-existence. And we atheists will never tire of mentioning that the principle you just applied also goes for Tooth Fairies, yet you ignorantly deny their existence with your limited science in hand. Actually God is easier to deny, because it would be such a massive elephant in the room, that evidence should be fairly easy to obtain, yet, the more we do figure out the less likely God is. The burden of proof lies with you, not me.
Think about it -- the code has a teleological goal set to make clocks. As the machines evolve, they will always eventually end up as people (sorry, clocks) even though the underlying processes appear to be random.
You are missing the point of the simulation, it replaces "clockiness" for "fitness to survive" in a natural environment ,which is far too complex to simulate, and even if a simulation was made, it would take too long to see a meaningful result, because the "meaning" or "set goal" would just be continued survival, thus sort-of meaningless to us.. You can see an example of this here : http://www.truthtree.com/evolve.shtml As you will notice, these things dont really become "more like" anything, they just get selected to become better survivors
This is why simulations where we have an artificially set goal to reach (in this case a working clock) works better because we can see the improvement, the evolution in action. In the real world, there was no set goal, "lets make dinosaurs, humans, birds fish etc" it was just genes surviving because they survive because they survive.
Proteins, lipids and carbohydrates are not alive either, and unlike a pendulum which when created serves to tell time better, a protein attached to a lipid does not have a better chance of staying alive, BECAUSE ITS NOT ALIVE TO BEGIN WITH!
So the movie contradicts itself claiming that it does not address the beginnings or ID or the probiotic soup theory. With reference to ShakaUVM's comment about the intelligent design involved in the programming, he is right, Natural selection is a design, don't let the name fool you its a natural process, as Djsunkid says, but that does not in the least render it designless.
All this further serves to support my theory that this video is "fun" and has some "great music" But proves shit all. Maybe ill write some code and take three whole entire days to compile a scientific proof that this video is retarded. (even though i voted for it, he he)
-P.S. djsunkid, lay off the E, your counterargument does not discredit ShakaUVM's argument in the least, you just run off on another tangent. Oops i think i just flamed...
Peroxide: Proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates react naturally via well understood physical and chemical processes...in a similar way to how hydrogen reacts with oxygen to produce water.
Certain combinations of proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates have the ability to stay CONNECTED in various environments, more than other combinations do. Eventually(over maybe, I don't know - a couple million years maybe?), those combinations form what we now know as complex life...from certain combinations that stay together in certain environments further combining with other combinations...on and on, through time.
bluecliff: The clockmaker was hired by Wal-Mart to make molds of the parts he used to produce by hand, and work closely with a programmer to program robots to put together the parts to make a watch. The clockmaker mysteriously died six days after receiving his royalty check from Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart shipped the entire factory they had sponsored the building of, and set of robots to China.
The humans working in the original factory that made the watches were offered a job in the Chinese factory provided they could relocate to China on their own. None having the ability to do so, their Union tried to make a deal with Wal-Mart Inc. and they were all offered jobs at the new Wal-Mart stores that would open up in their area within the next four to six weeks. Their cost is now $5.50 per hour and their vocabulary has improved from Engineering/Machining terms to "Welcome to Wal-Mart, Sir or Ma'am."
Wal-Mart looks forward to your assimilation, as well.
Humans find it hard to understand the concepts of evolution and natural selection because we want these things to have "meaning" We like to think that we are different than other animals and that evolution was a ladder leading up to us. In reality, logic and science tell us that no one life form is "better" than any other and there is no rational reason that people are better than wolverines. Wolverines didn't cause extinction on a massive scale for 5000000 years and ruin entire other species chance to live in the wild by domesticating them. i.e.: maize, dogs, chickens, soybeans.
In the end, all life is just an unnecessarily complex method of DNA reproducing in a complex environment.
Bluecliff: Where he is, is not the question, If he is, is the question. Aside from that did you even watch the movie, and thoroughly read the posts?
Cryptographix: said "Proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates react naturally via well understood physical and chemical processes...in a similar way to how hydrogen reacts with oxygen to produce water." -my point was not that they do not react you fool, it was that they do not constitute life... therefore are utilized irrelevantly Throughout the ENTIRE VIDEO'S METAPHOR (which im not sure you watched).
-Cryptographix "those combinations form what we now know as complex life...from certain combinations that stay together in certain environments further combining with other combinations...on and on, through time." What you describe directly above is called luck. The theory of evolution DOES NOT APPLY TO ENTITIES LACKING DNA or RNA! such as phospho-lipids or proteins
-most scientists agree the first basic cell was infinitely more complex than a simple, singular chemical process. Take Bio 310 in your first year of university.
By asking "where" he is I was begging the question of his existence, trying to get someone to show me the maker of the clock so I can positively verify his "being" - ergo your "if he is"
*Change the title!* Natural selection occurs in response to the environment, and thus is a mechanism that relies on measurement/detection (i.e., not "blind").
edit. Evolution and science in general is not out to disprove the existence of a higher power. It is all about discovering the truth no matter how much it clashes with belief systems.
so you choose an elusive watchmake who has no place? who canot be found, talked to, asked, got to. Show me a watch and I will believe you have a watch, I will not believe you have a watchmaker unless you show him to me. If you say he has no place than I can only say that he must very nice and all, but from what I hear about watchmakers they aught to have shops, and places, a good watchaker at least would have one. Contriving to build a watch ex nihilo is tough, for any man. but perhaps he isn't the one who made the watch? And such elusive watchmakers are fickle and not to be trusted I presume.
ShakaUVM- i think the principle you're reaching for, the one you've almost but not quite grasped hold of, is what is referred to as natural selection. Not ID. Once you have genes that replicate, the "goal" is to have genes that replicate better.
No, I'm quite well read on evolution and ID. What you do not understand is that ID incorporates the theory of evolution and natural selection in it. Natural selection is, in fact, a subset of ID theory. ID is not creationism. If you think so, you drastically need to read up on the topic. Creationism is the literal belief in the account of Genesis in the Bible. ID is the belief that an intelligent being influenced evolution (to produce humans). These two beliefs are quite at odds with each other.
I know, I know it's popular in the press to say that they are the same, but besides the fact that God could be the intelligent designer, they have nothing in common.
This video is a demonstration of ID. In fact, I could remove his text labels and make a compelling new video demonstrating how intelligent design could have worked. An intelligent designer could have done nothing more than to set a teleological goal (in this case, "Clock-ness") and then let evolution figure out the rest.
*Change the title!* Natural selection occurs in response to the environment, and thus is a mechanism that relies on measurement/detection (i.e., not "blind").
The title was copied by me from the maker of the video, "Blind Watchmaker" is a homage/tribute to Richard Dawkins book with the same name, Read the book to understand the phrase, Evolution truly is blind maker because it has no way of seeing where its headed, it just works like a blind man, fumbling in the dark, producing massive amounts of waste, where only a tiny fraction survive. That which survives, survives, and the fumbling repeats. And just like that, 3000 million years later, things like you, me, birds and bees are a reality.
To the ID proponents: this is NOT showing intelligent design, unless by intelligent design you mean "chance."
If it better suits you, you COULD say that this simulation is an analogy to a situation like this: God created a colony of 10,000 bacteria with simplistic DNA, and let them be. This is not directly refuting the existence of God or the creationist view of life, but it DOES show that life can evolve from simple to complex, from pendulums to clocks, from bacteria to humans. And life can do this without an invisible, supernatural, or intelligent hand guiding its way.
"but besides the fact that God could be the intelligent designer, they have nothing in common."
That's absolutely true. In fact, one can argue that the "intelligent designer" is by his very characteristics, not God. The demiurg, the architect, whatever you want to call "him" In fact, if it were to be found that nature is "intelligently" designed that would be more of a case for the gnostics and manichaeans, than for christianity.
so you choose an elusive watchmake who has no place?
"Blind Watchmaker" is an analogy, its like saying rain is a "blind floodmaker" none of the drops have a will or a meaning, or foresight to break the levees, but thats what happen when many drops "design" the flood together, it happens due to the laws of physics. Life evolves to the "law" of natural selection.
ShakaUVM: I've actually read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" does that count as reading up on ID? ID is yet another "theory of the gaps" which is to say, it searches for further and further small gaps in scientific knowledge in the hopes that someday, eventually the scientists will be totally flummoxed, and finally admit that there MUST be something that is impossible to explain.
You have to realise that when you invoke a "designer" whether that be god or whatever else, it's just the same as giving up. Oh, well, we don't know what is causing bubonic plague, it must be God's divine retribution, we might as well not study it. Humans aren't meant to fly, it's God's will.
The problem with ID is that it tries SO hard to find out what scientists don't know, and when the proponents find anything, they gleefully shriek "see!? you don't know how that works, it must be a designer!!!" Then science progresses, and the ID camp is pushed back even further, and searches for more percieved gaps.
These ID people are the very advanced "researchers" like Behe and some others. I'll assume that you are among this elite group of "well-informed" creationists ID proponents. Does it make you at all curious to note that the majority of your supporters are frothing at the mouth bigots? The same people who support "teach the controversy" are the people that oppose stem cell research, abortion for rape victims, and probably racial desegregation?
Not to turn this into an appeal to authority nor an ad hominem attack, but it must make you pause and think. Why is it that Intelligent Design textbooks are word for word verbatim copies of old creationist textbooks? Do you find it at all curious that the term Intelligent Design was coined the very same year that the american supreme court banned the teaching of creation "science" on the grounds that it violated the constitutional seperation of church and state?
Having read Behe, I agree that ID isn't straight religion. In fact, it's worse. It's straight up anti-scientific.
Or did you mean a different sort of ID, that actually does some research? Because the only ID i've ever heard of simply sits and complains. Fearfully.
"if you don't belive me, here's the code.. SCHHHHWIIIING!". Why can't my code reviews be like that !?
Some of the evolved designs look quite 'tidy' and others look like a complete buggers muddle. I wonder why the results were so polarized. I also wonder which type are we (mammals)?
I wonder why the results were so polarized. I also wonder which type are we (mammals)?
Yes, we are mammals, more specifically primates: african, hairless apes, our closest living relative is the chimpanzee and the bonobo, (We do NOT decend FROM them, they decend from the same thing we decend from, we share ancestors) a little further back we share ancestors with orangutangs and monkeys, If we go all the way back, 3.5 billion years, we share ancestors with all living creatures, including the 99% that are currently extinct.
I am currently half-way through Dawkins' book "The Ancestor's Tale" which I think I can already safely say is an amazing book, that really puts things in a bit of a perspective, and it quite definitely answers those questions you are asking here
Stumble This
Well, the pendulum swings back and forth, shifting the gears around with that orange thing on the top, add gears for more accurate measurement, and springs for more endurance. (I think thats atleast somewhat accurate) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_clock
And the only problem I see is that people use the term evolution to mean a proces of change which has a direction - i.e. more and more complex forms of life.
Etymology and historical meaning
The word stems from the Latin term evolutio meaning "unfolding" and prior to the late 1800s was confined to referring to goal-directed, pre-programmed processes such as embryological development. A pre-programmed task, as in a military maneuver, using this definition, may be termed an "evolution." By the 20th century, the dominant concept associated with the word "evolution" was biological evolution, which had originally been known as "transmutation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_%28term%29#_note-devolving
So humans could theoretically "evolve" into "lower forms" of life.
That's all.
here's an interesting video
- Lacan's plea for fundementalism
Q & A section:
Why do we not look at nature and see cats that have evolved into floating mouths?
BECAUSE THEY DID NOT EVOLVE WITH A SINGULAR FUNCTION.
------------------------------
Finally, note to all atheists: Any Christian who argues evolution as being impossible, is a neo-conservative redneck, and frankly, should be ignored. I know couple and they piss the hell out of me and are a misrepresentation of Christian scientific theology.
Adjunct to staying alive: procreate.
Of course there are many, many ways to do so, some complex, some not.
"Why do we not look at nature and see cats that have evolved into floating mouths?"
Assuming I'm even coming close to comprehending what you mean by that, the answer probably has something to do with the laws of physics.
The main problem with that is the exact same issue addressed in the video. We're only assuming what the creationists come up with in their argument, nothing more, nothing less.
For the other posters, please remember that ID != Creationism. Creationism is the literal belief in the Genesis account of the Bible, which ID certainly is not.
Fortunately for us, one of the best ways for genes is to encode information about their surroundings. The better an organism fits in its surroundings, the better its chances of passing on its genes. The god, or designer you're looking for is simulacra, or information-encoding. Starting with the beginning of life, the story of this planet has been the accumulation of information- the creation of more and more specific models of the "real world". A polar bear is white because he lives in a white landscape and can hunt better, giraffes have long necks to reach tall leaves, etc etc etc.
The rate of acceleration has increased even further as one species has learned how to encode information in non-dna form- by building tools, and eventually specifically through spoken and written language, religions, etc- and finally the scientific method.
We are witnessing the end of the era of dna dominated information encoding. So far our technology has a better QUALITY of information about the universe than is encoded in the DNA of the species of the earth, but a much lower quantity. This will change dramatically in our lifetimes.
So yes, there is a "force". The force is natural, not supernatural. And it drives the processes that we think of as human endeavor, but are really just continuation of the progress that began when the first strand of RNA drove the synthesis of the first enzymes that made the first protein in the first lifeform on our planet.
You've got to be kidding me, thats the whole point of natural selection, the animals who fits best into the environment, tend to be the ones who survives, so statistically the fittest survive. Sure enough, with modern medicine we can do miracles as they say, but still a baby born with a perfectly good heart, naturally has better odds at surviving, and thus reproducing than a baby with a severe heart condition, even if you count in all those that are saved by doctors etc, the statistical results will show the same trend.
Thats how natural selection works, the environment does the selecting. And it does work everywhere, not just in "temporal isolated circumstances" or else we would not be here. Ofcourse there are always much more factors involved than you can possibly come up with in a simple simulation (or even a very complex one) but the basic premise is the same
Based on the limitations of science in an unlimited universe, it is equally foolish to declare, "There is no God" with anything approaching certainty.
Good thing then that the video you downvoted before watching, has no mention of God's non-existence. And we atheists will never tire of mentioning that the principle you just applied also goes for Tooth Fairies, yet you ignorantly deny their existence with your limited science in hand. Actually God is easier to deny, because it would be such a massive elephant in the room, that evidence should be fairly easy to obtain, yet, the more we do figure out the less likely God is. The burden of proof lies with you, not me.
You are missing the point of the simulation, it replaces "clockiness" for "fitness to survive" in a natural environment ,which is far too complex to simulate, and even if a simulation was made, it would take too long to see a meaningful result, because the "meaning" or "set goal" would just be continued survival, thus sort-of meaningless to us.. You can see an example of this here : http://www.truthtree.com/evolve.shtml As you will notice, these things dont really become "more like" anything, they just get selected to become better survivors
This is why simulations where we have an artificially set goal to reach (in this case a working clock) works better because we can see the improvement, the evolution in action. In the real world, there was no set goal, "lets make dinosaurs, humans, birds fish etc" it was just genes surviving because they survive because they survive.
OMG
Proteins, lipids and carbohydrates are not alive either, and unlike a pendulum which when created serves to tell time better, a protein attached to a lipid does not have a better chance of staying alive, BECAUSE ITS NOT ALIVE TO BEGIN WITH!
So the movie contradicts itself claiming that it does not address the beginnings or ID or the probiotic soup theory. With reference to ShakaUVM's comment about the intelligent design involved in the programming, he is right, Natural selection is a design, don't let the name fool you its a natural process, as Djsunkid says, but that does not in the least render it designless.
All this further serves to support my theory that this video is "fun" and has some "great music" But proves shit all. Maybe ill write some code and take three whole entire days to compile a scientific proof that this video is retarded. (even though i voted for it, he he)
-P.S. djsunkid, lay off the E, your counterargument does not discredit ShakaUVM's argument in the least, you just run off on another tangent. Oops i think i just flamed...
Where IS the clockmaker, tell me that, please?
Certain combinations of proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates have the ability to stay CONNECTED in various environments, more than other combinations do. Eventually(over maybe, I don't know - a couple million years maybe?), those combinations form what we now know as complex life...from certain combinations that stay together in certain environments further combining with other combinations...on and on, through time.
bluecliff: The clockmaker was hired by Wal-Mart to make molds of the parts he used to produce by hand, and work closely with a programmer to program robots to put together the parts to make a watch. The clockmaker mysteriously died six days after receiving his royalty check from Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart shipped the entire factory they had sponsored the building of, and set of robots to China.
The humans working in the original factory that made the watches were offered a job in the Chinese factory provided they could relocate to China on their own. None having the ability to do so, their Union tried to make a deal with Wal-Mart Inc. and they were all offered jobs at the new Wal-Mart stores that would open up in their area within the next four to six weeks. Their cost is now $5.50 per hour and their vocabulary has improved from Engineering/Machining terms to "Welcome to Wal-Mart, Sir or Ma'am."
Wal-Mart looks forward to your assimilation, as well.
END TRANSMISSION
In the end, all life is just an unnecessarily complex method of DNA reproducing in a complex environment.
But shall the bones of the watchmaker live
shall they live?
ave atque vale
blessed are the meek for they shall inherit all the p**sy?
Life is a form of death
said the dying geneticist to his cousin
Cryptographix: said "Proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates react naturally via well understood physical and chemical processes...in a similar way to how hydrogen reacts with oxygen to produce water."
-my point was not that they do not react you fool, it was that they do not constitute life... therefore are utilized irrelevantly Throughout the ENTIRE VIDEO'S METAPHOR (which im not sure you watched).
-Cryptographix "those combinations form what we now know as complex life...from certain combinations that stay together in certain environments further combining with other combinations...on and on, through time."
What you describe directly above is called luck. The theory of evolution DOES NOT APPLY TO ENTITIES LACKING DNA or RNA!
-most scientists agree the first basic cell was infinitely more complex than a simple, singular chemical process. Take Bio 310 in your first year of university.
Wasn't that implied in my question?
And what does constitute life?
http://www.nature.com/nsmb/journal/v14/n5/pdf/nsmb0507-362.pdf
You: First of all a clock is no evidence of the existence of a clockmaker. Absolutely none.
Where IS the clockmaker, tell me that, please?
Me:Where he is, is not the question, If he is, is the question. Aside from that did you even watch the movie, and thoroughly read the posts?
You: Bluecliff: Where he is, is not the question, If he is, is the question.
Wasn't that implied in my question? --- Noooooo
And what does constitute life? --- Certain chemical processes which can only take place within the walls of a cell...
"no evidence of the existence of a clockmaker"
in question form = does the clockmaker exist?
By asking "where" he is I was begging the question of his existence, trying to get someone to show me the maker of the clock so I can positively verify his "being" - ergo your "if he is"
The location of a being does not prove it's existence; and vice versa,
The existence of a being does not prove that it has a location.
who canot be found, talked to, asked, got to. Show me a watch and I will believe you have a watch, I will not believe you have a watchmaker unless you show him to me.
If you say he has no place than I can only say that he must very nice and all, but from what I hear about watchmakers they aught to have shops, and places, a good watchaker at least would have one. Contriving to build a watch ex nihilo is tough, for any man. but perhaps he isn't the one who made the watch? And such elusive watchmakers are fickle and not to be trusted I presume.
No, I'm quite well read on evolution and ID. What you do not understand is that ID incorporates the theory of evolution and natural selection in it. Natural selection is, in fact, a subset of ID theory. ID is not creationism. If you think so, you drastically need to read up on the topic. Creationism is the literal belief in the account of Genesis in the Bible. ID is the belief that an intelligent being influenced evolution (to produce humans). These two beliefs are quite at odds with each other.
I know, I know it's popular in the press to say that they are the same, but besides the fact that God could be the intelligent designer, they have nothing in common.
This video is a demonstration of ID. In fact, I could remove his text labels and make a compelling new video demonstrating how intelligent design could have worked. An intelligent designer could have done nothing more than to set a teleological goal (in this case, "Clock-ness") and then let evolution figure out the rest.
The title was copied by me from the maker of the video, "Blind Watchmaker" is a homage/tribute to Richard Dawkins book with the same name, Read the book to understand the phrase, Evolution truly is blind maker because it has no way of seeing where its headed, it just works like a blind man, fumbling in the dark, producing massive amounts of waste, where only a tiny fraction survive. That which survives, survives, and the fumbling repeats. And just like that, 3000 million years later, things like you, me, birds and bees are a reality.
If it better suits you, you COULD say that this simulation is an analogy to a situation like this: God created a colony of 10,000 bacteria with simplistic DNA, and let them be. This is not directly refuting the existence of God or the creationist view of life, but it DOES show that life can evolve from simple to complex, from pendulums to clocks, from bacteria to humans. And life can do this without an invisible, supernatural, or intelligent hand guiding its way.
That's absolutely true. In fact, one can argue that the "intelligent designer" is by his very characteristics, not God.
The demiurg, the architect, whatever you want to call "him"
In fact, if it were to be found that nature is "intelligently" designed that would be more of a case for the gnostics and manichaeans, than for christianity.
"Blind Watchmaker" is an analogy, its like saying rain is a "blind floodmaker" none of the drops have a will or a meaning, or foresight to break the levees, but thats what happen when many drops "design" the flood together, it happens due to the laws of physics. Life evolves to the "law" of natural selection.
You have to realise that when you invoke a "designer" whether that be god or whatever else, it's just the same as giving up. Oh, well, we don't know what is causing bubonic plague, it must be God's divine retribution, we might as well not study it. Humans aren't meant to fly, it's God's will.
The problem with ID is that it tries SO hard to find out what scientists don't know, and when the proponents find anything, they gleefully shriek "see!? you don't know how that works, it must be a designer!!!" Then science progresses, and the ID camp is pushed back even further, and searches for more percieved gaps.
These ID people are the very advanced "researchers" like Behe and some others. I'll assume that you are among this elite group of "well-informed"
creationistsID proponents. Does it make you at all curious to note that the majority of your supporters are frothing at the mouth bigots? The same people who support "teach the controversy" are the people that oppose stem cell research, abortion for rape victims, and probably racial desegregation?Not to turn this into an appeal to authority nor an ad hominem attack, but it must make you pause and think. Why is it that Intelligent Design textbooks are word for word verbatim copies of old creationist textbooks? Do you find it at all curious that the term Intelligent Design was coined the very same year that the american supreme court banned the teaching of creation "science" on the grounds that it violated the constitutional seperation of church and state?
Having read Behe, I agree that ID isn't straight religion. In fact, it's worse. It's straight up anti-scientific.
Or did you mean a different sort of ID, that actually does some research? Because the only ID i've ever heard of simply sits and complains. Fearfully.
Q: What does an agnostic, dyslexic insomniac do at night?
A: Laying awake, wondering if there is a dog.
Some of the evolved designs look quite 'tidy' and others look like a complete buggers muddle. I wonder why the results were so polarized. I also wonder which type are we (mammals)?
Yes, we are mammals, more specifically primates: african, hairless apes, our closest living relative is the chimpanzee and the bonobo, (We do NOT decend FROM them, they decend from the same thing we decend from, we share ancestors) a little further back we share ancestors with orangutangs and monkeys, If we go all the way back, 3.5 billion years, we share ancestors with all living creatures, including the 99% that are currently extinct.
I am currently half-way through Dawkins' book "The Ancestor's Tale" which I think I can already safely say is an amazing book, that really puts things in a bit of a perspective, and it quite definitely answers those questions you are asking here