Unplanned Origins?

[turtle]

There is no hard evidence that there was any planning involved with the origin of life on earth…

There is no hard evidence that there was any planning
involved with the origin of energy and matter…

Actually there is no hard evidence that these origins werent planned…

We just do not know about these origins at the present time…

[anon]

Planned:

Unplanned:

I think Krakow’s old town plan (the latter image) looks more “natural”. The order is more organic, reflecting multiple agents, and the complexities of all the co-evolved processes and interactions that made the city what it is today.

[without-music]

And so what is your conclusion?

[anon]

@without-music

And so what is your conclusion?

Nature shows no sign of having been designed by a single agent.

Nature’s order is of the co-evolved kind, not the single designer kind.

[phyllo]

Planned or unplanned? How can you tell?[attachment=2]spiral1.jpg[/attachment][attachment=1]spiral2.jpg[/attachment][attachment=0]spiral3.jpg[/attachment]

[anon]

Well, phyllo, you can read about co-evolution, for one. My visuals were just for getting the idea across. They weren’t meant to be the litmus test for central planning.

[phyllo]

Well, phyllo, you can read about co-evolution, for one. My visuals were just for getting the idea across. They weren’t meant to be the litmus test for central planning.

I just wonder what the criteria would be for distinguishing between planned and unplanned. Nature contains lots of structure and lots of chaos.

[without-music]

@anon

Nature shows no sign of having been designed by a single agent.

Nature’s order is of the co-evolved kind, not the single designer kind.

I inferred as much. My question was, however, for turtle.

[anon]

@phyllo

Well, phyllo, you can read about co-evolution, for one. My visuals were just for getting the idea across. They weren’t meant to be the litmus test for central planning.

I just wonder what the criteria would be for distinguishing between planned and unplanned. Nature contains lots of structure and lots of chaos.

Right, but nature evolves. It is because of that evolution (and co-evolution) that nature exhibits the complexity, beauty, order, etc. that people appreciate in it. Co-evolution makes clear that at least certain kinds of order (i.e. host-parasite relationships) didn’t exist from some posited beginning, but came to be over time. The idea that there is a “balance of nature” is a myth.

[anon]

@without-music

@anon

Nature shows no sign of having been designed by a single agent.

Nature’s order is of the co-evolved kind, not the single designer kind.

I inferred as much. My question was, however, for turtle.

Oh, ok. Quoting is helpful.

[without-music]

@anon

Oh, ok. Quoting is helpful.

Apologies. I think I posted my response just as you posted yours. I was under the impression that mine would’ve been the first response to turtle’s post. But no matter.

@anon

Right, but nature evolves. It is because of that evolution (and co-evolution) that nature exhibits the complexity, beauty, order, etc. that people appreciate in it. Co-evolution makes clear that at least certain kinds of order (i.e. host-parasite relationships) didn’t exist from some posited beginning, but came to be over time. The idea that there is a “balance of nature” is a myth.

Well said. I believe you’ve adequately answered turtle’s question.

[turtle]

@without-music

@anon

Nature shows no sign of having been designed by a single agent.

Nature’s order is of the co-evolved kind, not the single designer kind.

I inferred as much. My question was, however, for turtle.

i have no conclusion…we really know very little…

[Moreno]

@anon

Nature’s order is of the co-evolved kind, not the single designer kind.

So does the universe as a whole seem like something coevolved?

[Moreno]

@phyllo

Well, phyllo, you can read about co-evolution, for one. My visuals were just for getting the idea across. They weren’t meant to be the litmus test for central planning.

I just wonder what the criteria would be for distinguishing between planned and unplanned. Nature contains lots of structure and lots of chaos.

I think this is the question. Once we look at things found in nature and say they DO NOT show design, we have to wonder if our own creations show intelligent design.

[phyllo]

Right, but nature evolves. It is because of that evolution (and co-evolution) that nature exhibits the complexity, beauty, order, etc. that people appreciate in it. Co-evolution makes clear that at least certain kinds of order (i.e. host-parasite relationships) didn’t exist from some posited beginning, but came to be over time. The idea that there is a “balance of nature” is a myth.

Not everything in nature had to be planned. Perhaps the original plan was to create a structure on which life would flourish. The result is a universe which supports life and evolution.

Kind of like artificial reefs:

An artificial reef is a human-made underwater structure, typically built to promote marine life in areas with a generally featureless bottom, control erosion, block ship passage, or improve surfing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_reef

[anon]

@Moreno

@anon

Nature’s order is of the co-evolved kind, not the single designer kind.

So does the universe as a whole seem like something coevolved?

Nature “as a whole”? What would nature co-evolve with? That’s kind of an odd idea.

[anon]

@Moreno

@phyllo

Well, phyllo, you can read about co-evolution, for one. My visuals were just for getting the idea across. They weren’t meant to be the litmus test for central planning.

I just wonder what the criteria would be for distinguishing between planned and unplanned. Nature contains lots of structure and lots of chaos.

I think this is the question. Once we look at things found in nature and say they DO NOT show design, we have to wonder if our own creations show intelligent design.

It’s about whether there is a single designer or not, not whether there is intelligence or not.

[anon]

@phyllo

Right, but nature evolves. It is because of that evolution (and co-evolution) that nature exhibits the complexity, beauty, order, etc. that people appreciate in it. Co-evolution makes clear that at least certain kinds of order (i.e. host-parasite relationships) didn’t exist from some posited beginning, but came to be over time. The idea that there is a “balance of nature” is a myth.

Not everything in nature had to be planned. Perhaps the original plan was to create a structure on which life would flourish. The result is a universe which supports life and evolution.

Kind of like artificial reefs:

An artificial reef is a human-made underwater structure, typically built to promote marine life in areas with a generally featureless bottom, control erosion, block ship passage, or improve surfing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_reef

Deism bring up other issues. I address some of them here.

Artificial reefs are awesome by the way. Except it makes me skeptical when their creation seems like an excuse for corporations to sink ships and get away with it, with positive PR to boot.

[Moreno]

@anon

I think this is the question. Once we look at things found in nature and say they DO NOT show design, we have to wonder if our own creations show intelligent design.

It’s about whether there is a single designer or not, not whether there is intelligence or not.

God or gods, designed or happened. Single or plural.

Your post with the map seemed to view this city as the result of many agents. Perhaps the universe is such a result.

What are the criteria for distinguishing something that is designed - the result of some number of agents - from something that is not?

[Moreno]

deleted