The Argument "For" and "Against" Creative Intelligence (Human or Divine)

[Gambit]

First, the argument against creative intelligence:

We once thought that the apparent design we see exhibited in biological organisms (e.g. an eyeball) requires the creativity of divine intelligence. But we now know that this is not true. We need only invoke genetic evolution (random variation of genes and natural selection working in tandem) in order to account for the apparent design.

Likewise, we once thought that the apparent design we see exhibited in human artifacts (e.g. a pocket watch) requires the creativity of human intelligence. But we now know that this is not true. We need only invoke memetic evolution (random variation of memes and natural selection working in tandem) in order to account for the apparent design.

"The whole point about evolutionary theory is that you do not need anyone to direct it, least of all consciously." (source: pg. 239, "The Meme Machine" by Susan Blackmore)

"We once thought that biological design needed a creator, but we now know that natural selection can do all the designing on its own. Similarly, we once thought that human design required a conscious designer inside us, but we now know that memetic selection can do it on its own." (source: pg. 242, "The Meme Machine" by Susan Blackmore)

Second, the argument for creative intelligence:

The "argument for creative intelligence" is basically the same argument as the "argument against creative intelligence." The only difference is a matter of perspective.

We now understand how human creativity works in the world. It's works by memetic evolution. Likewise we now understand how divine creativity works in the world. It works by genetic evolution.

"What the critics of evolution consistently fail to see is that the very indeterminacy they misconstrue as randomness has to be, by any definition, a key feature of the mind of God. Remember there is one (and only one) alternative to unpredictability - and that alternative is strict, predictable determinism. The only alternative to what they describe as randomness would be a nonrandom universe of clockwork mechanisms that would also rule out active intervention by any supreme Deity. Caught between these two alternatives, they fail to see the one more consistent with their religious beliefs is actually the mainstream scientific view linking evolution with quantum reality of the physical sciences." (source: pg. 213 "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth R. Miller)

"Fortunately, in scientific terms, if there is a God, He has left Himself plenty of material to work with. To pick just one example, the indeterminate nature of quantum events would allow a clever and subtle God to influence events in ways that are profound, but scientifically undetectable to us. Those events could include the appearance of mutations, the activation of individual neurons in the brain, and even the survival of individual cells and organisms affected by the chance processes of radioactive decay." (source: pg. 241 "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth R. Miller)

There is a direct parallel between the two-stage model of free will and biological evolution.

A two-stage model of free will separates the free stage from the will stage.

In the first stage, alternative possibilities for thought and action are generated, in part indeterministically.
In the second stage, an adequately determined will evaluates the options that have been developed.

If, on deliberation, one option for action seems best, it is selected and chosen. If no option seems good enough, and time permitting, the process can return to the further generation of alternative possibilities ("second thoughts") before a final decision.

A two-stage model can explain how an agent could choose to do otherwise in exactly the same circumstances that preceded the first stage of the overall free will process.

(source: Wikipedia: Two-stage model of free will)

Ernst Mayr called biological evolution a "two-step process", in which random variations in the gene pool are followed by law-like natural selection.[1]

Free will is also a two-stage creative process – first random and "free", then a lawful "will". First chance, then choice.

The mind's "two-stage" ability to be creative and free is likely evolved indirectly from Mayr's "two-step" process and then directly from the combination of random and lawlike behavior in the lower animals pointed out by Martin Heisenberg.[2] Free will is therefore not an ad hoc development in humans, as many philosophers (especially theologians) have thought.

(source: Wikipedia: Two-stage model of free will)

 

[George-ananda]

I'm on the side of conscious creative intelligence. Your 'against' argument skipped over abiogenesis and went straight to evolution. But we've heard both sides debate abiogenesis too so that certainly won't end the debate.

My opinion (not 'proof') is based on the mindboggling complexity that allows even simple life let alone complex life to occur. Think about what DNA can do. Also, from people I respect as having transcendent knowledge (beyond the physical plane) tell us that intelligence was involved in fostering the process.

Again, I understand neither side can produce proof to convince the other.

 

[YmirGF]

Oddly, I didn't think that "intelligent design" had any good arguments. Did I miss something?

 

[Gambit]

I'm on the side of conscious creative intelligence. Your 'against' argument skipped over abiogenesis and went straight to evolution. But we've heard both sides debate abiogenesis too so that certainly won't end the debate.

I also skipped over cosmology where Darwinian principles have also been used to explain the apparent fine-tuning of the universe. Anywhere Darwinian principles are used to explain some kind of phenomenon my argument applies. The principles of random variation and natural selection can be interpreted as an argument either for or against creative intelligence. It's just a matter of perspective.

 

[Gambit]

Oddly, I didn't think that "intelligent design" had any good arguments. Did I miss something?

Read the OP.

 

[YmirGF]

Read the OP.

I did... and...

 

[Gambit]

I did... and...

And there are two perspectives: You either see no creative intelligence whatsoever in the universe or you see it everywhere.

 

[McBell]

Oddly, I didn't think that "intelligent design" had any good arguments. Did I miss something?

IF you did miss something, I missed it as well.
The OP certainly does not offer a "good argument" for intelligent design.

 

[McBell]

And there's two perspectives: You either see no creative intelligence whatsoever in the universe or you see it everywhere.

All or nothing?
Do you honestly adhere to this false dichotomy?

 

[Gambit]

All or nothing?
Do you honestly adhere to this false dichotomy?

I don't see any counterargument.

 

[McBell]

I don't see any counterargument.

Thats it?
An appeal to incredulity?

Where is that face palm emoticon?

 

[Gambit]

Thats it?
An appeal to incredulity?

Where is that face palm emoticon?

I still don't see any counterargument from you. You claimed that I created a false dichotomy. But you failed to explain why the dichotomy was false. Either the Darwinian principles of random variation and natural selection explain how creative intelligence works or there is no creative intelligence in the universe. Because the Darwinian principles have been employed not only to explain the apparent design we see in biological organisms but also the apparent design we see in human artifacts and even the apparent fine-tuning of the universe. So, either this apparent creativity is just that...apparent...or it is not. You can't have it both ways.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

If abiogenesis happened before, why hasn't there been any recent cases of a living creature being created from a nonliving thing?

Doesn't it seem a little too coincidental that consciousness appears in things that deal with genes and reproduction so that not only will there be something to admire this universe, but to guarantee that there will be more?

 

[Gambit]

If abiogenesis happened before, why hasn't there been any recent cases of a living creature being created from a nonliving thing?

That's a good question and something I have wondered about myself. I don't know why. I don't think anyone does. Panspermia may be a possibility.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

If abiogenesis happened before, why hasn't there been any recent cases of a living creature being created from a nonliving thing?

Well it would have existing life to compete with, which I think makes it more difficult for new life to arise.

Also, we don't know the likelihood of life emerging. It may only be probable enough to where it generally only occures on a planet once out of several million planets.

But given the vastness of the universe, it practically guarantees life happening somewhere sometime.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And there are two perspectives: You either see no creative intelligence whatsoever in the universe or you see it everywhere.

What? Don't you think that people have 'creative intelligence', for example?

How can somebody NOT see creative intelligence whatsoever in the universe, then?!?

 

[Ultimatum]

Well it would have existing life to compete with, which I think makes it more difficult for new life to arise.

Also, we don't know the likelihood of life emerging. It may only be probable enough to where it generally only occures on a planet once out of several million planets.

But given the vastness of the universe, it practically guarantees life happening somewhere sometime.

This is it. The first very basic organism would have almost nothing to compete with and therefore would have time to develop and evolve.
It has been given a start in 'life' in where it has everything it needs to develop, yet not have to compete with other organisms for it.

What? Don't you think that people have 'creative intelligence', for example?

How can somebody NOT see creative intelligence whatsoever in the universe, then?!?

It's not about not seeing 'creative intelligence'. Because using that description is subjective. What may be intelligently designed to you, perhaps is not so to other organisms. And if something is perceived to be intelligently designed, why does it need a designer?
The best example of this would be the Mandelbrot set, which is a set of fractals.There is no Designer or Co-ordinator; but simply, time and numbers (Evolution) allow these beautiful patterns to emerge.

You can read about them here:
Mandelbrot set - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's not about not seeing 'creative intelligence'. Because using that description is subjective. What may be intelligently designed to you, perhaps is not so to other organisms. And if something is perceived to be intelligently designed, why does it need a designer?

Errr .. what are you talking about ?

Do you think that people have 'creative intelligence' or not?
..or does it just seem like they do?

 

[LuisDantas]

There is no good argument for Intelligent Design.

What argument there is, however, is very enlightening about the nature of human belief and perception.

It all dissolves once people take the trouble to study the evidence and the available data.

That may help explain why so many people are so certain that evolutionists all the way back to Darwin himself are a bunch of ill meaning anti-theists, despite the complete lack of evidence pointing towards that. It may be mostly an emotional denial of the validity and impartiality of the evidence itself in order to protect emotionally loaded beliefs.

 

[LuisDantas]

If abiogenesis happened before, why hasn't there been any recent cases of a living creature being created from a nonliving thing?

For one thing, why do you think there haven't? How would you even know? One of the main reasons why the origin of life was so meaningful is because life reproduces. Once lifeforms became widespread, it became quite a challenge to notice if somehow a second abiogenesis event somehow turned out.

Then there is the matter of environment. Abiogenesis as we hypothetise it currently is basically a lot of random floating organic molecules associating themselves into patterns that have the property of reproduction. As a random event, it was that much more likely to happen when there were not so many established lifeforms tying up the biomass.

To make an illustration, it is a bit like having thousands of dice and lots of time to throw them all just because. For whatever reason it turns out that whenever a dozen dice in a row all turn 6 side up they become an autonomous entity and are separated from the poll. Even more than that, they actually grab nearby dice and turn them 6 side up by their turn, thereby creating competing autonomous "diceforms".

Once such a pattern is established, soon enough the uninvolved dice become so few that it is very difficult for a second origin event to develop on its own.

As a related consideration, there has just not been enough time since the development of life for us to expect finding a second abiogenesis event (even if we knew where to look).

Doesn't it seem a little too coincidental that consciousness appears in things that deal with genes and reproduction so that not only will there be something to admire this universe, but to guarantee that there will be more?

No, not at all. Between the plenty of evidence that life is indeed very coincidental and the realization that we can only perceive things once some form of consciousness has been established, it is in fact a bit difficult to imagine what you are talking about.

Come to think of it, I do not know what you are talking about. What are those "things that deal with genes and reproduction"? Living beings in general? Human beings?

Also, you seem to be assuming a purpose ("so that ... will there be something"), and we have no evidence for any.