But I do have a few comments for the record on what is the “cut” between creationism and intelligent design. They are most certainly not the same thing at all – and attempts to paint the ID supporters with the creationist brush reflects poorly on those who do so, much like attempts to paint evolutionists with the Nazi brush reflects poorly on those who do so. Both arguments seem to crop up when the correspondent has run out of “ammunition” and has to throw “spit wads” to stay in the game.
But back to the point of my reply…
Creationism generally refers to a Christian interpretation of Scriptures which says that Adam was the first man (mortal or ensouled) based on a strict reading of Romans 5:12-14 and I Corinthians 15:42-48. By genealogy, Adam had to be created 6000 years ago. A group of Jewish mystics also agree that Adam had to be created 6000 years ago.
Naturally, there are differences in specific doctrine – but the narrowing in on Genesis 1 is a misdirection when speaking to Christians. It is a doctrinal issue which can only be addressed by theological argument.
The creationist group breaks down into several sub-groups:
Another side believes that God created an “old” looking universe, 6000 years ago. There is no scientific argument against this group at all – because there can be no scientific argument that God did not create ‘all that there is’ last Thursday. It is theological and everyone knows it.
Another side believes that Adam was specially created and zapped into an old universe, 6000 years ago. Again, there is no scientific argument against this group.
Another group – a mid ground between creationism and evolution – is the interpretation that Adam was the first ensouled man. This is the Catholic doctrine and again, there is no scientific argument against this group.
Still another group (my group) – says that God was the only observer of creation week and thus those 6 days must be viewed from inception space/time coordinates (inflationary theory and relativity). Using that formula, 6 days at the inception coordinates equals approximately 15 billion years at our space/time coordinates, Genesis 1-3 apply to heaven and earth and Adams’ time begins when he is banished to mortality in Genesis 4 (6000 years ago).
Collective consciousness is Eastern metaphysics and very popular among a number of scientists outside the United States. Again, this is not far afield of research in swarm intelligence, the behavior of ants, bees and the ilk.
God, of course, is the most logical candidate for designer among most Western civilizations whether Judeo/Christian, Islamic or myriad other religions.
The chief objection to the theory is that “randomness” cannot be the prime factor in the formulation: random mutations – natural selection > species.
In the naturalistic, determinist view (and theological, predestination view) – every effect has a prior cause – and therefore - even under strict scientific materialism - there is no such thing as randomness per se - only pseudo-randomness. Chaitin's Omega, for instance, is the effect of a cause. Brownian motion is caused, etc.
This is fairly basic stuff these days – that is why the mathematicians have turned to “self organizing complexity” to explain master control genes and the ilk which allow such functions as eyeness to evolve concurrently across phyla, i.e. it is not “random”.
For all the objections to Intelligent Design and the tossing of spit wads – the mathematicians and physicists are already engaged and working on the very things which are necessary to give a complete picture of origin of species: information (successful communications), autonomy, semiosis, complexity, intelligence.
IMHO, it doesn't matter whether the work is done because of Intelligent Design objections or despite them - in the end, the randomness pillar will be pitched and we will be looking for non-corporeal causation for the "will to live", "fecundity principle", "evolution of one" - or whatever one wishes to call it.
Do not ping me again.
That sentence looks so utterly silly to any normal human being. One might wonder why it should look any less so if you eliminate the latter two options... Better yet, let's expand them:
The designer could be God, collective consciousness, aliens, a host of avatars, flying turtle droppings from beyond, a dragon cleaved in two, the tooth fairy, little green leprechauns from Uranus, the Dao of Qi, a giant's decaying corpse, the tears of the ether, divinely curdled salt, the demiurge, interdimensional summoning, or a celestial sneeze.
Thank you for your very excellent reply. In my experience, the "creationist" school tended to be from only the 6 day/young earth group. I appreciate the instruction otherwise.
Collective consciousness is Eastern metaphysics
What school of "Eastern metaphysics" holds that "collective consciousness" intelligently designed life on Earth? I will help out with a few examples that don't: Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Shintoism.
You are one of the very few people who sincerely think that ID is not a slicked-up version of creationism. My guess is that almost everyone else who supports ID does so in the way that voters supported John Kerry -- he wasn't much, but at least he wasn't George Bush. It was widely known as the "anyone but Bush" syndrome. Similarly, there's a group that will support "anything but evolution." Nothing else can explain how otherwise intelligent people will profess to believe that "little green men from Uranus are responsible for all the evidence that is currently explained by evolution" is an hypothesis that biologists should seriously consider.
I've missed you around these threads. Where ya' been?
All of the intelligent entities you mention here explicitly denote personhood. Is that a logical, or ontological, necessity where intelligent design is concerned?