Intelligent Design vs Darwinism

I always found the battle between those who accept Evolutionary Theory and those who believe in Intelligent Design, well to put it lightly, quite comical. It just always seemed to me like pure Evolution was too rigid in it's fundamental understandings of life, and as left too much unanswered, while Intelligent design posed too many poorly thought and uncreative answers to some of the most fundamental questions.

My personal belief or theory was developed simply by observing the world, I suppose much like the pre-socratics used to do, however it was also grounded in Scientific discovery. I find the problem is people choose sides, they miss the entire picture.

I am curious to hear what others think on this subject, and then I will post what I think :)

Do you believe Life, the Universe has an intelligent creator? Somewhere behind the curtain of the dark cosmic abyss, is there an entity or intelligent (force) which set to action the happenings which brought about intelligence within us? Can there be a created without a creator?

or

Is life simply a random occurrence based on probability and a series of highly improbably events which somehow or another happened at the right time and place to facilitate, well, you and I?

or

Perhaps there is another means of reasoning and understanding utterly missed by both of these explenations, something so utterly simple we move right by it.
…

Re: Intelligent design vs Darwinism

I love those questions.  To avoid an answer–I don't know that the questions necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.  From a linguistic point of view, I think the verb “create,” in order to take on a direct object, would likely have to have a subject–but we don't necessarily have to anthropomorphize the “creator”…certainly nature, light, heat can all be creators (though they may arguably deserve to be, in and of themselves, anthropomorphized).  I'm a scientist and pragmatist by education, a Buddhist and spiritualist by existance (none of which, I may point out, are mutually exclusive either–scientist and Buddhist, pragmatist and spiritualist, education and existance).  So all of that vague and undefinitive blather comes down to this…I don't know.  I don't think I'll ever really know, and I'm okay with not knowing.  It leaves science things to question–and faith things to believe.

Re: Intelligent design vs Darwinism

Great response.  Exactly…..

Why Assume a Creator separate from Creation? Creation is a flow, a rhythm, an UNFOLDING… from what? of what? of itself. Like an asexual frog reproduces, as does this Biological Fractal Universe. We can not understand it through the same perspectives of separate thought as we have tried to understand things before. New understandings at levels far beyond, far smaller and far greater, require a different probe, a different traveling vessel, a different frequency of conscious inquiry. Only then I believe will we come closer, and perhaps when we are closer ,we will realize our place….. the Upholders and Up-keepers of Explicate Order. The shapers and Creators of Explicate Form, the Artisans and Crafter's of Life.

Re: Intelligent Design vs Darwinism

Evolution vs Intelligent Design - a sense of perspective.

As an archaeologist I have studied the progress of mankind from its beginnings very much from the context of a scientific discipline. Human evolution, the progression of human beings as a species from apes to modern homo sapiens sapiens, as an idea, is probably the major underpinning of all disciplines involved in tracing the [hi]story of us as a species. And in my studying of archaeology I too was a firm evolutionary believer. But that was before I discovered Edgar Cayce.
Before everyone starts ‘tutting’ and switching off let me make it clear that I still very much believe in evolutionary biological processes - it is just that I also believe that there is a wider perspective to explore when looking at this particular question.

I remember having a very interesting discussion with a man I sat next to on a flight from London to Phoenix - one of those rare instances where one actually talks to the person next to you on a flight! He was a self-professed Born Again Christian and was very open to ideas and discussion and had studied most of the major religions of the world. Our discussions inevitably led to the evolution vs intelligent design question and, though my metaphysical reading had only really relatively recently begun at that point in time I could already see that there was no good reason why the two arguments should be so mutually exclusive. Natural selection & evolution, I argued, were merely biological mechanisms that allowed living creatures to survive and adapt to major environmental changes. My argument was not that there was no ‘intelligent design’ but that evolutionary processes did nothing to preclude an intelligent designer - surely evolution was merely part of the design - a sub-mechanism within the larger order. The advocates of intelligent design were, in their vehemence against Darwin, just not looking at a big enough picture. So went my argument. But the one thing I didn’t yet have the answer to was his assertion that man had been made in the image of God…

This is where the discovery of Edgar Cayce really filled in a huge piece of the puzzle for me, and made me reassess my belief that mankind was a part of the evolutionary process - not that he is not part of the evolutionary process - more that we have not arrived where we are today by evolutionary means alone.

Cayce’s readings revealed that man is not only made in God’s image, but that he is part of God. But - and it is a big ‘but’ - it is not our physical embodiment that is made in the image of God - a mistake made in a lot of Christian thinking - but it is our spiritual selves, our true selves - our souls, that are made in the image of God - in fact are part of what God is - “we are all godlings” Cayce said. That is the piece of the puzzle I had not yet found.

In his psychic readings, Cayce tells of man’s first excursions into the physical plane on earth. At first we explored the earth’s material environment not in physical form but in spiritual form. Later we experimented with physical forms, not ape-like forms that were already present on earth but forms that were manifested from projections of our thoughts -

“These thought forms hardened into true physical bodies that parodied the animal life of that era, producing grotesque results. Some readings speak of humanoid creatures with animal attributes such as tails, feathers, fur, scales, and hooves, even dwarfs and giants. Perhaps there is substance to the old Greek myths of satyrs, centaurs, nymphs and other strange creatures. The more these souls succumbed to sensual pleasure gratifying their own selfish desires at other’s expense the less able they came to move freely out of their physical bodies. At last they came trapped in them from birth to death, and many forgot or ignored their relationship to their Maker”.
(Edgar Evans Cayce et al, 1997 “Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis”)

“Thoughts are things” as Edgar Cayce constantly reminded us.

As I have explored further this new (at least to me) metaphysical world, I have truly come to believe in the Oneness of all things. Everything is connected. Everything, the whole universe and everything in it is part of a conscious whole - if there is a God then that surely is what God is? Science is slowly beginning to catch up with the concept of a connected universe - String Theory neatly underpins the idea with a multi-dimensional universe based on interacting vibrations, as does Michael Talbot’s idea of a holographic universe. The metaphysical concept is taken further by others in that they argue for all material in the universe as a manifestation, a projection of conscious thought, of which we are but a part - “God created the heavens and the earth” goes the famous biblical quote. Whether that universal creative consciousness is called God or not, the point is that it is a) universal and b) conscious. It therefore follows that we are probably more here by result of so-called “intelligent design” , if that is your chosen terminology - at least one could say by “conscious thoughtfulness” - than merely by random accidents of natural selection and biological survival mechanisms.

But the problem is that what happens when such a question based on “Evolution vs Intelligent Design” is put forth is that it elicits a vehement emotional response by by a very vocal minority of individuals and groups on the side of either science or religion, (mainly by religion), and which has inevitably drawn in others to take a reactionary stance for one side or the other. As an unfortunate consequence of this both terms have become much maligned through a misappropriation, misunderstanding and misapplying by people on either side of the argument. (As, I would argue, have other terms such as ‘God’, ‘Christianity’, and ‘religion’, to mention but a few).

In the end, I would argue that the whole “Evolution vs Intelligent Design” thing is really a non-argument. As with everything, it is down to a question of perspective. As science and spirituality inevitably move closer together, I think everyone will find that the important point to appreciate - and that is not appreciated by the majority of those advocating intelligent design at the moment - is that it is us, as spiritual beings (collectively with God if you like) within a connected and conscious universe, that are the creative and intelligent - or at least [meta]conscious - designers.

Re: Intelligent Design vs Darwinism

Jasper great response….  I have often meditated upon this “Image of GOD” or in GODS image, and I came to the abstract understanding of the word through “fractal” images… Man is a fractal image of GOD, meaning man IS GOD, not apart from the biological system but an integral asset… Man is the conscious element of GOD, the part of GOD which can understand/know itself… That is the beauty of it… You see it took me a long time to come up with these concepts, then one fine day I was introduced to Eastern thought and philosophy; only then did I learn that mystics had that very idea/notion for thousands of years before any singular notion of Divinity or separated narrative of Humanity.

There are two recent books called “Quantum Evolution” and “Biocosm” which develop this notion of Humanity as an Evolution of the greater spectrum of Universal Consciousness….

The entire problem is EGOcentric thinking, if we think from an object/predicate perspective where we are separate from everything (( which was a necessary step in awareness and conscious thought )) then we arrive at a very limited scope and understanding of the greater workings of the cosmic scale.. However when we think from a perspective of Unity, we can truly think outside of the “BOX”, a truly holistic form of knowledge.

As apposed to segregation and separation which are but IMAGES of a patriarchal past, driven by Fear and False Power, a Unified approach is driven by true intelligence, and true power ( responsibility )… Anyways perhaps a bit cryptic…

…………

As long as we keep victimizing ourselves or seeing ourselves as apart from nature, conscious evolution will be far and few between.

Re: Intelligent Design vs Darwinism

‘Humanity as an Evolution of the greater spectrum of Universal Consciousness…. ’

now that is an interesting thought - I must add those two books to my reading list!

Many thanks! I look forward to more interesting discussions on this pod.

Jasper

Re: Intelligent Design vs Darwinism

I believe that this question is almost completely irrelevent. It does not help me be a better kinder more compassionate person. It is important to idealogues, dogmatists, and people who feel obliged to defend against religious fundamentalists. There are much more urgent matters to be concerned with.

As the Buddha said regarding questions of the origin of the universe, etc.: “This question does not edify.”

Re: Intelligent Design vs Darwinism

On the contrary I think this is a question of fundamental importance, to us as a species and for our evolution. To understand the future we must understand our past. Regardless, the Buddha or what the Buddha supposedly said or did, does not in any way shape or form discredit this venture, the ideals of 4000-2000 years ago can not be quoted for present day.

Much has changed and is changing, and we are constantly coming closer to uncovering more detail of this this most important question. This question in fact relates to the root of humanity, the root of our semantic self inquery and understanding… Who are are, What we are, Where we are from and where then we are going.

Re: Intelligent Design vs Darwinism

I think it is more important to understand what has happened in the last 150 or even in this decade, which a lot of people are completely confused about.

The question of human origins is not answerable definitively, you have to pick your model and go with it. I happen to believe that a guiding intelligence is an unprovable proposition, and that trying to “prove” it, at least with a hidden Christian fundamentalist agenda, generally does violence to the scientific evidence. It is a philosophical debate, not a debate based on evidence. For this reason I find it irrelevent. I do not require it and it does not further inform who I am in my daily life. In fact ”the ideals of 4000-2000 years ago” have more relevence, at least when it comes to the teachings of the Buddhadharma, for instance, than the debate over whether darwinian evolution is an accurate representation of human origins, and those ideals can certainly be brought up when dealing with daily affairs. You are right, I suppose, that his disregard for questions that he found fruitless, does not necessarily define the issue, I was illustrating my own opinion with the quote.

I am interested in how you feel that this is important as a more than intellectual curiousity. How is it more important than understanding the issues of our relationship to our environment or to the rest of humanity, in the present day and going forward. There is nothing mysterious about the fact that we are all one human species, regardless of origins, and that we have one planet to live on and we had better get our act together or we will be pondering our endgame not our origins