aneeshm
Deity
Personally, I subscribes to Intelligent Design, or rather, "Intelligent Intervention" theory. That is, there is some force intervening in our development, which is responsible for the initiation of the chain of evolution via differential rates of replication, and which is always there to ensure that there is a "turning point" in the evolution of things. I do not know the purpose of such intervention, but can deduce that such a purpose exists, and that we play am important part in it. I will explain my chain of reasoning below.
Epistemologically, I believe that there are three methods of proof: perception, inference, and trustworthy testimony.
The first two are accepted as self-evident, axiomatic.
Now, many people might contend that the third isn't really true. But the counter-question remains - how can you trust what is said by eminent scientists if you cannot follow the inferential chain they did, because of a lack of qualifications to do so?
You will reply - "But science is based on a method! It has valid means of knowing what is right and wrong!"
And I would agree. So you, too, take certain things "on faith", so to speak, by setting the standard of the trustworthiness of a source at a point acceptable to you.
As to what caused me to doubt that the theory of evolution was adequate in explaining all life and its diversity, I shall elaborate.
First of all, the differences in chromosomes between species. I see no way that this could have happened through natural selection. This is the problem Dawkins refers to when he says that natural selection is slow and gradual - like a crane. Chromosomal addition, however, is like the proverbial skyhook.
Secondly, there seem to be "leaps" of evolution which cannot be accounted for by anything except a nudge in the right direction. That is, why are humans so disproportionately intelligent compared to other species? Unless the phenotypic effects of this intelligence were beneficial enough to pay the evolutionary costs in terms of other lost resource allocation opportunities, this should have been eliminated at the get-go. But it wasn't.
Now some people here might bring in the idea that sexual selection played a part. But the point is, why us? And why now? And why at the first chance available? Before us, there did not exist a creature capable of actually using intelligence, even if it had it. So it is possible that the "intervener", at the crucial moment, stepped in and made intelligence attractive, so that evolution would take the path it did.
Culminating in us.
We were probably the first agents of direct change in this world - the first ones through whom the intervener's ideas could be implemented by simply introducing into our population the appropriate meme. As to what purpose this whole exercise this is, I do not know. But time will tell.
Epistemologically, I believe that there are three methods of proof: perception, inference, and trustworthy testimony.
The first two are accepted as self-evident, axiomatic.
Now, many people might contend that the third isn't really true. But the counter-question remains - how can you trust what is said by eminent scientists if you cannot follow the inferential chain they did, because of a lack of qualifications to do so?
You will reply - "But science is based on a method! It has valid means of knowing what is right and wrong!"
And I would agree. So you, too, take certain things "on faith", so to speak, by setting the standard of the trustworthiness of a source at a point acceptable to you.
As to what caused me to doubt that the theory of evolution was adequate in explaining all life and its diversity, I shall elaborate.
First of all, the differences in chromosomes between species. I see no way that this could have happened through natural selection. This is the problem Dawkins refers to when he says that natural selection is slow and gradual - like a crane. Chromosomal addition, however, is like the proverbial skyhook.
Secondly, there seem to be "leaps" of evolution which cannot be accounted for by anything except a nudge in the right direction. That is, why are humans so disproportionately intelligent compared to other species? Unless the phenotypic effects of this intelligence were beneficial enough to pay the evolutionary costs in terms of other lost resource allocation opportunities, this should have been eliminated at the get-go. But it wasn't.
Now some people here might bring in the idea that sexual selection played a part. But the point is, why us? And why now? And why at the first chance available? Before us, there did not exist a creature capable of actually using intelligence, even if it had it. So it is possible that the "intervener", at the crucial moment, stepped in and made intelligence attractive, so that evolution would take the path it did.
Culminating in us.
We were probably the first agents of direct change in this world - the first ones through whom the intervener's ideas could be implemented by simply introducing into our population the appropriate meme. As to what purpose this whole exercise this is, I do not know. But time will tell.
