Evolution is the design process used by God

[Sophus]

I don't think anyone here doubts that life is extremely complex but again, that does not demand it is designed. It is not. A design requires a plan which is then executed. So even if there is a God who selected the laws which make up evolution he is not even designing us to the degree that we are "designing" different breeds of dogs by controlling their breeding. Unless you wish to reject other natural laws and assert God is directly altered the environments of our ancestors so that we would eventually emerge, only then does He play a somewhat activate role in making His creatures. Either way, it's quite silly to me.

[pinkocommie]

btw I am not talking about the creationist Inteligent Design  and my last link is not about that point of view

http://www.springer.com/computer/ai/book/978-3-540-74109-1

Design by Evolution:

 Keywords »   Artificial life    -  Computational embryogeny    -  Creative arts    -  Engineering design    -  Evolutionary biology    -  Evolutionary computation    -  Evolutionary design    -  Intelligent design    -  Optimization

Really?  Then I have to ask why you would both link to and quote a reference from a book that had intelligent design listed as one of the associated keywords?  Does the book specifically argue against intelligent design while arguing for things being designed intelligently?  Can you give some page numbers in the book where intelligent design was discussed in a way that is not pertaining to the theory of intelligent design as put forth by the Discovery Institute and the like but still remains pertinent to your evolution is a design process used by god argument?

Honestly, I get the impression that you're cherry picking information as you go and plugging in whatever sounds like it fits to argue your position.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

[fdesilva]

btw I am not talking about the creationist Inteligent Design  and my last link is not about that point of view

http://www.springer.com/computer/ai/book/978-3-540-74109-1

Design by Evolution:

 Keywords »   Artificial life    -  Computational embryogeny    -  Creative arts    -  Engineering design    -  Evolutionary biology    -  Evolutionary computation    -  Evolutionary design    -  Intelligent design    -  Optimization

Really?  Then I have to ask why you would both link to and quote a reference from a book that had intelligent design listed as one of the associated keywords?  Does the book specifically argue against intelligent design while arguing for things being designed intelligently?  Can you give some page numbers in the book where intelligent design was discussed in a way that is not pertaining to the theory of intelligent design as put forth by the Discovery Institute and the like but still remains pertinent to your evolution is a design process used by god argument?

Honestly, I get the impression that you're cherry picking information as you go and plugging in whatever sounds like it fits to argue your position.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

Let me explain myself. When I say Evolution is the design process used by God. I am implying
1. That evolution is a design Process.
2. That God Used it.
Now I don’t expect anyone to buy 2 on the basis of what I've said here alone. Neither do I know, if it will be possible to defend that view based on the theory of evolution alone.
So no, 2 does not follow from 1. It needs a leap of faith. On the other hand for a person that already believes that God created everything,  it makes evolution compatible with it.
Now with regards to 1 by itself, while I am no expert on that view, it is a view that is shared by many scientist,  as evident by the links I gave.

[MikeTheInfidel]

Evolution is only a 'design' process by accident. It has no goal and no intentions; it's just "whatever worked best".

If this is the method God used to design the universe, then he is a god that prefers the wholesale slaughter of living things as a central part of his plan. He is a god that sat back with folded arms for millions of years as thousands of generations of humans lived, suffered, and died - often horribly and in childbirth - just so that he could recite barbaric nonsense morality to a tribe of desert nomads who practiced animal sacrifice as a means to appeal to his better side.

Were I even to believe that such a god existed, I would not find him worthy of respect, let alone worship and utter devotion. I'm shocked to see that anyone today does.

[fdesilva]

Evolution is only a 'design' process by accident. It has no goal and no intentions; it's just "whatever worked best".

If this is the method God used to design the universe, then he is a god that prefers the wholesale slaughter of living things as a central part of his plan. He is a god that sat back with folded arms for millions of years as thousands of generations of humans lived, suffered, and died - often horribly and in childbirth - just so that he could recite barbaric nonsense morality to a tribe of desert nomads who practiced animal sacrifice as a means to appeal to his better side.

Were I even to believe that such a god existed, I would not find him worthy of respect, let alone worship and utter devotion. I'm shocked to see that anyone today does.

How many times, have the great artist of this world thrown away their work or drawn over it? Each new creation holds something new, evolving from the old. Great creators never hold on to one creation but always look forward to the next. Each is celebrated in its own time. Each is a cherished memory, carried forward.
The Greatest Creator, from an earthy perspective, where time is finite and fleeting may look cruel. Yet from an eternal perspective, time always is, as such nothing is truly destroyed but cherished with Love by its Maker.

[philosoraptor]

How many times, have the great artist of this world thrown away their work or drawn over it? Each new creation holds something new, evolving from the old. Great creators never hold on to one creation but always look forward to the next. Each is celebrated in its own time. Each is a cherished memory, carried forward.
The Greatest Creator, from an earthy perspective, where time is finite and fleeting may look cruel. Yet from an eternal perspective, time always is, as such nothing is truly destroyed but cherished with Love by its Maker.

Most of those great artists have never claimed to be infallible, immortal beings, though.  If God is perfect, what's with the redos?  And if he isn't perfect, than he isn't the god religion makes him out to be.

[pinkocommie]

btw I am not talking about the creationist Inteligent Design  and my last link is not about that point of view

http://www.springer.com/computer/ai/book/978-3-540-74109-1

Design by Evolution:

 Keywords »   Artificial life    -  Computational embryogeny    -  Creative arts    -  Engineering design    -  Evolutionary biology    -  Evolutionary computation    -  Evolutionary design    -  Intelligent design    -  Optimization

Really?  Then I have to ask why you would both link to and quote a reference from a book that had intelligent design listed as one of the associated keywords?  Does the book specifically argue against intelligent design while arguing for things being designed intelligently?  Can you give some page numbers in the book where intelligent design was discussed in a way that is not pertaining to the theory of intelligent design as put forth by the Discovery Institute and the like but still remains pertinent to your evolution is a design process used by god argument?

Honestly, I get the impression that you're cherry picking information as you go and plugging in whatever sounds like it fits to argue your position.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

Let me explain myself. When I say Evolution is the design process used by God. I am implying
1. That evolution is a design Process.
2. That God Used it.
Now I don’t expect anyone to buy 2 on the basis of what I've said here alone. Neither do I know, if it will be possible to defend that view based on the theory of evolution alone.
So no, 2 does not follow from 1. It needs a leap of faith. On the other hand for a person that already believes that God created everything,  it makes evolution compatible with it.
Now with regards to 1 by itself, while I am no expert on that view, it is a view that is shared by many scientist,  as evident by the links I gave.

How many is 'many scientists'?  Can you give a list of names?  No an endless wall of links, but names with the books they've written that you've read, even if only in part.  Because the only scientists I've ever heard of who supported the idea that evolution is in any way a 'design process' are theistic scientists who have an agenda and have been largely discredited by the greater - that is, vast vast VAST majority - of the scientific community.

Also, I figured you didn't read the book you quoted and posted a link to.  Why should we even care about all of the links you post when you don't even have a basic understanding of the material you're attempting to reference?  "Look, this guy who claims he's a scientist wrote something once, therefore my point is valid' doesn't sell well here.  

Have you ever read the origin of species?

[MikeTheInfidel]

Evolution is only a 'design' process by accident. It has no goal and no intentions; it's just "whatever worked best".

If this is the method God used to design the universe, then he is a god that prefers the wholesale slaughter of living things as a central part of his plan. He is a god that sat back with folded arms for millions of years as thousands of generations of humans lived, suffered, and died - often horribly and in childbirth - just so that he could recite barbaric nonsense morality to a tribe of desert nomads who practiced animal sacrifice as a means to appeal to his better side.

Were I even to believe that such a god existed, I would not find him worthy of respect, let alone worship and utter devotion. I'm shocked to see that anyone today does.

How many times, have the great artist of this world thrown away their work or drawn over it? Each new creation holds something new, evolving from the old. Great creators never hold on to one creation but always look forward to the next. Each is celebrated in its own time. Each is a cherished memory, carried forward.
The Greatest Creator, from an earthy perspective, where time is finite and fleeting may look cruel. Yet from an eternal perspective, time always is, as such nothing is truly destroyed but cherished with Love by its Maker.

This is abject nonsense. Artwork is not a living thing. It does not suffer. It does not die. You are equating human beings with inanimate objects.

If God's actions seem cruel from our perspective, then that is all that matters, because we have no other perspective. It doesn't matter if god says "oh, you're just looking at it wrong." Any immoral monster could say the same about his own wretched actions.

Thank goodness that this god does not exist.

[karadan]

Thank goodness that this god does not exist.

Indeed.

[hvargas]

THE BIG QUESTIONS - Probing the promise and Limits of Science, by RICHARD MORRIS. 2002. Here there are some good arguments and or questions that are yet to be found and answer. Though it does not convinces me in many of its parts it does gives some pertinent postulates as to an intelligent design. The fact that things appear as they are is no indication of an intelligent design or that becouse particles or matters are in the exact order that they are to give way to " LIFE " as we know it indicates that an intelligent process is in the works. We first must determine how this intellingent came about, it can't just had come out of nowhere with all the knowledge require to create existence as far as we are able to see. To implied an Evolution design process by God is an illogical congesture by which we are implying that God first Created itself as the FIRST of CREATION and at the same time while Creating Itself created in Itself the Process of Evolution not only in its present being but also in its intelligent. That is to say, the Evolution of Intelligent. All this happen just like a BIG BANG execept that its the BIG BANG of the creation GOD. After the BIG BANG of God was completed in less than a fraction of a second, then the other BIG BANG occurred which was a BIG BANG created by God that produce the Universe. This is more or less what is being said or implied when when stating Evolution is the design process used by God. First God design itself and then design the Universe. Such arguments are without facts and are non-scientific. LIKE A MASTER PLAN BEFORE THE CREATION OF GOD.

[Whitney]

THE BIG QUESTIONS - Probing the promise and Limits of Science, by RICHARD MORRIS. 2002. Here there are some good arguments and or questions that are yet to be found and answer. Though it does not convinces me in many of its parts it does gives some pertinent postulates as to an intelligent design. The fact that things appear as they are is no indication of an intelligent design or that becouse particles or matters are in the exact order that they are to give way to " LIFE " as we know it indicates that an intelligent process is in the works. We first must determine how this intellingent came about, it can't just had come out of nowhere with all the knowledge require to create existence as far as we are able to see. To implied an Evolution design process by God is an illogical congesture by which we are implying that God first Created itself as the FIRST of CREATION and at the same time while Creating Itself created in Itself the Process of Evolution not only in its present being but also in its intelligent. That is to say, the Evolution of Intelligent. All this happen just like a BIG BANG execept that its the BIG BANG of the creation GOD. After the BIG BANG of God was completed in less than a fraction of a second, then the other BIG BANG occurred which was a BIG BANG created by God that produce the Universe. This is more or less what is being said or implied when when stating Evolution is the design process used by God. First God design itself and then design the Universe. Such arguments are without facts and are non-scientific. LIKE A MASTER PLAN BEFORE THE CREATION OF GOD.

The big bang has nothing to do with evolution aside from it having needed to happen in order for evolution to occur...likewise; most of the rest of your post doesn't make sense either.  You can't say in one breath that evolution is intelligent design then in another claim it is illogical to call that intelligence god; make up your mind.

[elliebean]

The fact that things appear as they are is no indication of an intelligent design

To implied an Evolution design process by God is an illogical congesture by which we are implying that God first Created itself [sic]

This is more or less what is being said or implied when when stating Evolution is the design process used by God. First God design itself and then design the Universe. Such arguments are without facts and are non-scientific.

It takes a lot of careful filtering to extract hvargas's intended meaning. Sometimes unusual syntax confuses the issue and we get what appear to be contradictions where there are none upon closer reading. That's not to say he's never wrong, just more consistent that it might seem at first glance.

[MikeTheInfidel]

Something I thought of at work today...

The will and ways of the Christian god are supposed to be infinitely inscrutable... and yet we're meant to accept that believers have figured out that science is one of his methods? How does that make sense?

[fdesilva]

How many times, have the great artist of this world thrown away their work or drawn over it? Each new creation holds something new, evolving from the old. Great creators never hold on to one creation but always look forward to the next. Each is celebrated in its own time. Each is a cherished memory, carried forward.
The Greatest Creator, from an earthy perspective, where time is finite and fleeting may look cruel. Yet from an eternal perspective, time always is, as such nothing is truly destroyed but cherished with Love by its Maker.

This is abject nonsense. Artwork is not a living thing. It does not suffer. It does not die. You are equating human beings with inanimate objects.

If God's actions seem cruel from our perspective, then that is all that matters, because we have no other perspective. It doesn't matter if god says "oh, you're just looking at it wrong." Any immoral monster could say the same about his own wretched actions.

Thank goodness that this god does not exist.

This is abject nonsense. Artwork is not a living thing. It does not suffer. It does not die. You are equating human beings with inanimate objects.

You hit the nail on the head. That is the key! You see artwork does not suffer or does it?
Now the Christian story is that all things that suffer, have a soul. It is the soul that feels the pain. The artwork does not suffer because it has no  soul. Now this soul is not material but eternal in its nature. Suffering is the medicine to prevent selfishness and pride. It is much like the surgeon’s knife.
If you say there is no soul, and say all thing are made of atoms only. Then no matter what way you might arrange those atoms (make a human) and say this arrangement suffers, then the cause of that suffering, will be equally applicable to the painting, as such you would also have to say the painting suffers. Here is a link to my thoughts on consciousness where I elaborate on this further
http://getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consciousness.htm

[Davin]

If you say there is no soul, and say all thing are made of atoms only. Then no matter what way you might arrange those atoms (make a human) and say this arrangement suffers, then the cause of that suffering, will be equally applicable to the painting, as such you would also have to say the painting suffers.

Yes, if the painting also had the capacity for pain... stuff like nerves and a brain greatly increase the chances that something will feel pain. If the cause of suffering requires a brain, then anything with a brain is likely to experience suffering.