> ...”I could weigh in with "ID seems to be the
> most plausible alternative.""...
> Sorry. One can not choose between science and
> speculation. At this point, random creation by
> accident is not an alternative.
Ain't that the truth! But the problem is there really isn't much science that carries the day with this topic. So all we have is speculation with just a pinch of science sprinkled on top.
> ..."But of course, there's that pesky
> but-who-created-the-intelligent-designer dilemma
> that keeps throwing the model off the
> rails."...No. it is not THE theme. The question is
> Life on Earth. ID or not.
> ...”I really don't like 'circular time' logic
> (e.g., John Connor), but regardless of whether
> it's circular or not, if it's infinite then what's
> the pattern?...is it simply designer of the
> designer of the designer... all the way back
> infinitely? What does that even mean?"...
> Never bother with the irrelevant.
Well, if we're talking about intelligent design, then I'm thinking we might want to consider the origin and nature of the designer.
> ..."What also makes this difficult for me is
> trying to not make the wrong presumptions about
> what constitutes "intelligence","
> ....Intelligence, OR the ability to abstract
> thinking, which obviously is a condition for
> creation of Life, pt.
Yes, that's part of my point. Is abstract thinking considered "intelligence"? Is deliberate forethought in a design considered "intelligence"? Is the implementation of that design considered "intelligence"? I'm really not so sure where to draw the line for "intelligence", e.g., to separate it from what might be non-intelligence.
> ..."as well as what entity is responsible for the "design",
> Who knows. Not on the agenda.
Well, again, if an intelligence designed part or all of it and then implemented that design, it would help to know how that happened, for no other reason than to assure ourselves that there's at least one conceivable way it could have happened. Otherwise, we are left with simply having faith that it must be the way it happened, and where's the fun in that?
> ..."and arguably more importantly, what entity is
> responsible for the implementation."...
> Implementation of what?
Implementation of the intelligent design into actual processes in the tangible universe.
> ..." In that regard, it's tough not to overly
> "personify" those characteristics since that's the
> anchor for our definition of 'intelligence' and
> the ability to deliberately 'design' something.
> I do not understand this.
The intelligent "designer" not only might not be human, it might not be an organic life form, or even a life form as we define it. So when we think of intelligence, it might not be productive to "personify" the designer as a living, or even physical, entity.
> ..."Might there be non-organic formats that bear
> something akin to what we consider as
> "intelligence", premeditated "design", and
> tangible "implementation"?"...
> Who knows? Unruly speculations may be fun... but
> some other time may be...
Well, one could argue that the entire notion of evolution, intelligent design, and the notion of "life" as a separate paradigm from the rest of the physical world are all figments of our imagination and therefore unruly speculations.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08-Jan-18 21:47 by Origyptian.