Evolution Requires a Deity?

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

The questions:

What would be the intelligent mechanism that drives each organism to "improve" itself?
Where did this intelligent" mechanism come from?
When would this "mechanism" have been instilled in the organism, and how?

Wow. You haven't in fact read any books on the theory of evolution, have you? I mean none that were written by serious scientists to explain it to us laymen. First off, there is no "intelligent mechanism" postulated in the theory. Second, the theory doesn't mention any concept about any organism "improving itself."

There's not enough room to discuss here the vast difference between the current thinking of the scientific community on evolution and your question. Really, you would do yourself an enormous favor by borrowing "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins from the library. Read it and then start formulating your own questions based on the actual theory. What you have in mind now is a cartoon characture that you picked up -- goodness only knows where.

[Sanjuro]

I never mentioned that scientists said there was an intelligent mechanism. That's part of my point. One would have to believe there would HAVE to be a mechanism that kicks in in order for an organism/species to keep advancing. Otherwise we'd see evidence of declination.

The difference between evolution and other areas of science (for the most part, except in other areas where a clear agenda is at play) is that here they are completely devoted to proving a pre-set understanding. They aren't testing the idea for mettle, they're assuming it must be and setting out to figure out how to prove it. That's not science, it's philosophy.

All that ^^^^, Simply not true.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

I never mentioned that scientists said there was an intelligent mechanism. That's part of my point. One would have to believe there would HAVE to be a mechanism that kicks in in order for an organism/species to keep advancing. Otherwise we'd see evidence of declination.

I think you err in assuming that evolution is a matter of "advancing" vs "declining." That is not the case. There is no "ideal" organism to reach for. The theory describes natural processes by which populations adapt to changing environmental pressures that challenge their survival.

[RebelSnake]

Let's ASSUME that macro-evolution is true for a moment.

I'm impressed Jovick. You're making progress. But then you had to go and make the mistake of "intelligent mechanism". It doesn't matter how you try to disguise it, it just doesn't fly. Why do people insist on seeing evidence of design where none exists? A good example that comes to mind is the Biminni Road down in the caribean. I know I spelled it wrong. The Biminni Road is underwater with the appearance of a road constructed by human hands, ie., evidence of design. But it was the result of natural forces.

One would have to believe

I've said it before. I don't want to believe. I want to know.

They aren't testing the idea for mettle, they're assuming it must be and setting out to figure out how to prove it. That's not science, it's philosophy.

It's not philosophy either, it's religion.

[Sanjuro]

I've always been rather partial to Einstein's definition of god..

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe--a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."

...referring to the concept of 'god' as everything we don't yet know.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Another view

Bruce Chapman, the president of the Discovery Institute, the primary backer of ID, has a different view of the study.

"A better explanation for the high percentage of doubters of Darwinism in America may be that this country's citizens are famously independent and are not given to being rolled by an ideological elite in any field," Chapman said.

The Discovery Institute can spin this any way they choose, but the bottom line is that every person who prefers to believe that two centuries of careful scientific work and cross-checking over several different disciplines is wrong are simply choosing ignorance.

Now, I really can't see what the problem is here. The Bible says that it's better to be ignorant and considered a fool by us non-believers. I really can't understand why folks like Discovery and other such "unthink tanks" are so determined to hinder and destroy the work of serious scientists. You'd think living in the bronze age and hunting/gathering in the desert would be good enough for them, since it was good enough for the guys who bloody well wrote the Bible. Meh -- go figure!