07-04-2024, 10:39 AM
(06-07-2024, 10:47 AM)CCoburn Wrote: Intelligent Design Vs Chance
I believe this to be part of a larger picture, but it can serve as entry point to a topic of interest for the time being while likely spawning other relevant threads.
This need not be a "one or the other" type scenario either but there could exist a sequence of events where these are part and parcel of a greater scheme of things such as existence and non(negative existence).
Just as mathematics implements an "order of operations" so may existence and a lack thereof.
It has been stated recently that there is "zero evidence" of intelligent design, but how can one observe any "evidence" if they cannot even properly define the anomaly in question that would yield such evidence?
Perhaps in attempting to define and possibly even understand this intelligent design anomaly, if it exists, it might also be productive in attempting to understand the parameters of its existence as well as non-existence if that is the case.
So there it is again and could have been written a hundred different ways. Intelligent design versus chance or perhaps a sequencing of both as components of a core cosmological order.
I think 'chance' is the harder of the two things to define, but I get where you are coming from.
As to the answer to the underlying question, I personally think it is a combination of both chance AND intelligent design. "Intelligent" is kind of risky territory though because religion creeps into this definition pretty quickly. And, while that may be the correct answer, I personally think we have to use a broader definition of 'intelligent'. And maybe this is where my "combination" theory comes from.
My first reaction was to say things start out as 'chance' and then get refined as 'intelligent' design, but I realized this wasn't right either because I had ignored the option of 'nothing at all' in my assumption.
If we look at genetics we can get some good clues. Take a dog for example. A certain breed of dog has natural tendencies, say a hunting dog for example. If you selectively breed this dog with other more refined characteristics the resultant dog becomes an even better hunter. This is to say that it's natural "instinct" as a hunter has been enhanced through this genetic refinement process. (I used to breed, raise and train Labradors). Another example I can cite from personal experience is in breeding cattle. We raise Belted Galloways. There are just regular Galloways also, but Belted(s) are a refined strain of the larger breed. What's interesting here is, the "Belt" follows the bull. The cow seems to have little to do with the proper formation of the famous white 'belt' around the animal. At the same time, the qualities unique to the Galloway breed also follow the bull, but not the cow. So, for example, we have one cow who is 50% Angus. I can breed her back to a Galloway bull and I'll get a Galloway calf every time, BUT I don't always get one with a belt (i.e. chance). Do the same thing with any of my other 100% cows and I'll always get a belt if I'm breeding to a belted bull (i.e. intelligent design).
About the only conclusion I can draw from this is there is both chance and intelligent design going on in this process. Beyond this, I am left with a number of clues to a larger answer I'm not sure we (anyone) fully understand yet.
