----- Original Message -----
From: "Taylor J. Smith"
Normally I refrain from contributing to this type
of thread; but I am compelled to ask where is
there any evidence for Intelligent Design, in
some benign sense?
In the scientific sense, it is all about probability and time
scale....more specifically an appreciation of the fiction of
"time" as a determinant of ultimate meaning.
Purely random processes, in the laboratory, take significantly
more time to materialize than what is actually seen in biology.
Not that several billion years isn't a long time, but if we had to
depend on true randomness at every stage, evolution would look
more like several trillion years to even get to multicellular
life.
Most of the developmental process are stochastic, however, meaning
that outside influence can accelerate and "direct" the course of
what would otherwise seem like random mutation. It is kind of a
directed catalysis. Rupert Sheldrake has written extensively on
this, without taking the next step into philosophical meaning. He
has an online site and his books are great "jumping-off" point for
science-based spirituality:
http://www.sheldrake.org/.
The best example, from the human perspective, is the way we have
bred traits into animals. Going from wolf to Chihuahua, in a
totally random process might be impossible or take a billion years
assuming that there was some niche for such a weird life-form -yet
it can be done in a few hundred years of directed effort.
When the direction comes from another dimension of reality,
however - a timeless dimension, then of course this kind of
million-to-one speed-up is not forthcoming; but in general.
stochastic processes can show what looks like a 10,000-1
improvement over purely random processes, when minimally
influenced.
The problem being, that for most practical purposes the sterile
and scientifically detached vision of ID is not going to offer the
personal intimacy desired by the masses - i.e. the "opiate
effect."
No, the "real" evidence for ID is subtle, not overwhelming. That
is why it requires somewhat of an elitist (scientific) mentality
to be comfortable with this dichotomy - of an erudite viewpoint on
the one hand, which is not diminished when combined with the
personal kind of spirituality on a lower level (and belief in an
"immediate" form of ID), having its roots in instinctual needs.
This dichotomy, elitist as it may appear, being preferable to the
total lack of accountability which would be the expected result of
an abandonment of spirituality at the level of mass-consumption,
shall we say.
Not to mention, Sheldrake's ideas, when expanded, work very well
with a scientific version of Karma and cyclical reappearance, at
the human level, which provides even a higher degree of
accountability and control, for some personality types. It
provides a real prospect for sequential progression, in place of
the absurd fiction of eternal life based on a last-minute choice.
Jones
