Intelligence vs. Humor: Evolution/Creationism

[Abishai100]

Imagine that two identical groups of identical organic cells in a pond environment have coagulated. One group is by the muddy bank of the pond (and therefore has less moisture) and the other group is floating on the surface of the pond (as a single 'unit').

The cell group with the less moisture (the one on the muddy bank) may 'seek' more adaptive strategies and 'teamwork algorithms' to compensate for its less competitive position (in terms of available moisture).

Competitive adaptation is the hallmark of Evolutionary Theory (Darwinianism), and it relays the idea of profit-based organic behavior (or 'survivalism').

To be adaptive, you have to be responsive (or sensitive), and sensitivity is a form of intelligence (or acute awareness).

Evolutionary Theory favors models of developing intelligence, while Creationism favors models of cyclical behaviors, tradition/custom, and creative loyalty (to a god, a superpower, a 'benefactor,' etc.).

Creationists may say, "God is insulted or amused at man's trivial attempts to 'formulate' the grand and mysterious design of His universe with simple-minded theories about competition-gauged 'economics' (or Darwinianism)!"

Darwinians may say, "Evolution and the development of DNA establishes species with the ability to precisely and predictably measure risk and depravity, which eliminates (intellectually) any need for a 'supervisory' or 'creationist' God!"

So one potentially interesting way to approach this complicated subject is to posit that Darwinians (since they are science-oriented) are less interested in concepts such as 'free will,' 'imagination,' 'creativity,' or 'the human spirit.' This of course implies that Creationists (since they are divinity-oriented) are less interested in concepts such as 'economic philosophy,' 'genetic cloning,' 'biometrics,' or 'algorithmic fate.'

Perhaps then Darwinians are solely-focused on the intelligence (as a defining 'quality') of 'organic life,' while Creationists are solely-focused on imagination (e.g., humor, art, etc.) as the 'hallmark' of 'existence.'

So here's a mock-dialogue between Shiva (Hindu god of destruction) and Krishna (Hindu god of negotiation) about the parameters of this Darwinianism-Creationism division, and what it could imply for Church-vs-State political debates!

Let me know what you think.

I thought about posting this in the Philosophy or Debate sections of USMB, but I was more interested in feedback from atheists and theists, but if the moderators feel this post is more appropriate in one of those sections, I can deal with that...


====

SHIVA: The sci-fi horror film Leviathan describes a gene-absorbing predator.
KRISHNA: Science-fiction symbolizes humanity's fascination with 'perceptual oddities.'
SHIVA: Is humor/imagination an 'oddity'?
KRISHNA: Well, creative thinking is certainly unique to each mind/brain.
SHIVA: Right, that's why it's called 'creativity'!
KRISHNA: Hobbes suggests in his philosophy work(!), Leviathan, "freedom is ugly!"
SHIVA: Artists may feel frustration in wrestling with the madness of creativity...
KRISHNA: That's correct. That's why Communism can feel stagnating to human beings.
SHIVA: Right, Communism sometimes sanctions the censorship of creative thought.
KRISHNA: But Americans like 'intellectual freedom' and appreciate competition (capitalism).
SHIVA: Many political theorists have suggested that Communism is somehow 'primitive.'
KRISHNA: Communist leaders such as Stalin have been portrayed as being too 'stiff.'
SHIVA: Darwinians may say, "Communism shows the 'humanness' of 'programmed behavior'."
KRISHNA: Creationists may say, "God loves Stalin jokes!"

====

 

[The Irish Ram]

You will not find two identical groups, or even identical cells in the pond. Each has it's own very complex, very complex DNA. A digital program. Your question needs to be, " Who created the digital code?"
Single celled organisms don't go from simple to complex. They are complex to begin with.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't think it is fair or accurate to equate the secular approach of darwinism to greater focus on intelligence?
And to frame science as NEGATING the creative arts?

I would frame the SECULAR NONTHEISTIC approach more NEUTRALLY and not attach those assumptions or biases.

In order for the creative decision making process to work, this still requires "trial and error" and "process of elimination" which is a science with logical choices. So the human brain needs both the creative and the deductive sides.

And if people favor one more than the other, we need to interact to check and balance each other's
strengths and weaknesses.

This isn't something you can divide into black and white GROUPS.

Even if you make the generalized analogy of the
* Church representing the Female nurturing side of humanity or society that includes all people as a family
and the
* State representing the Male authority figure that enforces rule of law for order and security.
This is still VERY LOOSE, and can't be taken LITERALLY to mean male/female roles.

I almost see where you are going with this,
where one is more about grounding in existing reality or resources
and the other is about relative adaptation?

But where you lost me was trying to assign values as in putting
importance on intelligence more than creativity when both are part of the human process.

If the State has more the job of establishing SECURITY from EXTERNAL threats or changes,
and the Church is about INTERNAL development and relationships between people that
are personal choices and not the business of the State to dictate, that might explain
why the RELATIVE systems are addressed using one system while the PUBLIC policies are
established and enforced by the other, Does that help? Can you tie that back in with your original analogy?

 

[Abishai100]

If the State has more the job of establishing SECURITY from EXTERNAL threats or changes,
and the Church is about INTERNAL development and relationships between people that
are personal choices and not the business of the State to dictate, that might explain
why the RELATIVE systems are addressed using one system while the PUBLIC policies are
established and enforced by the other, Does that help? Can you tie that back in with your original analogy?

Yes, thanks for the outlining. I think you're right about my liberal use of categories; and I do see what you mean about Church-State implications. Perhaps I could frame an argument in terms of 'free will' only. Creationists sometimes say things like, "God suggested that Adam and Eve could not maturely handle the problem of freedom (or free will)." while Darwinians (or Darwinists, I've seen both terms used) say things like, "Genetic adaptation is the molecular equivalent of 'free will' (or lack thereof in the case of congenitally inherited illnesses)."

Thanks again for your responses (Irish/emily).

 

[james bond]

EVOLUTION FAIL. Not only are evolutionists racist telling blacks that people came from apes, but now they're sexist harrassment, too.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

... about the parameters of this Darwinianism-Creationism division, and what it could imply for Church-vs-State political debates!

Let me know what you think.

they are two entirely unrelated fields of thought in which one has no factual basis to formulate any of its conclusions.

the implications are over time there will cease to be a reason for debate.

 

[james bond]

Let me know what you think.

Creationists would tell you are wrong. Wrong about your evolutionary theories and about creation. For example, algae started off in the oceans.

For the longest time, creation science didn't have a leg to stand on during the 1800s. Then it started to come back during the 1930s. There was some breakthrough "for" Genesis with the Big Bang Theory as compiled by this student, but the argument carries on today how the universe started. We agreed that the universe had a beginning.

 

[james bond]

.

... about the parameters of this Darwinianism-Creationism division, and what it could imply for Church-vs-State political debates!

Let me know what you think.

they are two entirely unrelated fields of thought in which one has no factual basis to formulate any of its conclusions.

the implications are over time there will cease to be a reason for debate.

You're jumping to a lot of conclusions like the evolutionist thinker OP. The fact is the universe had a beginning. It has been shown that the eternal universe and its theories like the atheist scientists' Steady State Theory has been shown to be pseudoscience. Yet, you continue to be snotty-nosed about evolution.

From the one fact that we agree upon, we have the Kalam's Cosmological Argument which is logical evidence for God and creation.



What do the atheist scientists have? The universe began from invisible particles?

 

[james bond]

Moreover, I've been to the world's largest algae pond. It is beautiful and impressive seeing it and its surroundings, but inadequate to provide for a town full of existing life. One would need an ocean-sized environment. These are problems that atheist scientists cannot solve.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

... about the parameters of this Darwinianism-Creationism division, and what it could imply for Church-vs-State political debates!

Let me know what you think.

they are two entirely unrelated fields of thought in which one has no factual basis to formulate any of its conclusions.

the implications are over time there will cease to be a reason for debate.

You're jumping to a lot of conclusions like the evolutionist thinker OP. The fact is the universe had a beginning. It has been shown that the eternal universe and its theories like the atheist scientists' Steady State Theory has been shown to be pseudoscience. Yet, you continue to be snotty-nosed about evolution.

From the one fact that we agree upon, we have the Kalam's Cosmological Argument which is logical evidence for God and creation.



What do the atheist scientists have? The universe began from invisible particles?

.

Yet, you continue to be snotty-nosed about evolution.

me ... I'm not the one that argued that with you, give it a break ... mine was simply the Spiritual means for its accomplishment.

do mountains evolve ... how.

the genome of life is no different for any species, where exactly did humans begin, not including the 4th century book as an answer.

 

[james bond]

>>do mountains evolve ... how.<<

Do you mean how they get created? You're even wrong about this brainwashed BreezeWood.

 

[james bond]

>>where exactly did humans begin<<

We are not going to drop the Bible. Science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.

Intelligent people can compare the two main theories, 1) God created human beings versus 2) Abiogenesis and the evolutionary thinking that nature and life is such that it is made to form all over the universe.

Today, science will not peer-review anything to do with the Bible and the supernatural. This conveniently allows the atheist scientists to continue lying about evolution since if creation is true, then evolution is false.

The facts are that new species come from existing species through natural selection. We do not find new life like alien life. All the classes of life goes back to baramins as explained in baraminology.

Baraminology - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

 

[BreezeWood]

>>where exactly did humans begin<<

We are not going to drop the Bible. Science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.

Intelligent people can compare the two main theories, 1) God created human beings versus 2) Abiogenesis and the evolutionary thinking that nature and life is such that it is made to form all over the universe.

Today, science will not peer-review anything to do with the Bible and the supernatural. This conveniently allows the atheist scientists to continue lying about evolution since if creation is true, then evolution is false.

The facts are that new species come from existing species through natural selection. We do not find new life like alien life. All the classes of life goes back to baramins as explained in baraminology.

Baraminology - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

.

Today, science will not peer-review anything to do with the Bible and the supernatural. This conveniently allows the atheist scientists to continue lying about evolution since if creation is true, then evolution is false.

you "convieniently" confuse your own worth bond, not everyone that discounts your awful 4th century mirage is an atheist many in fact embrace the 1st century events as a new beginning it is your book that attempts to change that good into something dreadfully bad.

The facts are that new species come from existing species through natural selection. We do not find new life like alien life. All the classes of life goes back to baramins as explained in baraminology.

you keep tripping over yourself, have the baramins discover modern man with the dinosaur fossils, they were all created together weren't they ...

no, there is no value to supporting your 4th century book, its history from that time to present day is replete with persecution and oppression the same tactics you use yourself.

We are not going to drop the Bible.

you are an example of those who should have known better than to chose not to see the truth. and become a burden on society.