Evolution & supreme, intelligent beings

[optimomojo]

000

[SCcoug]

Does evolution include the possibility of life developing into supreme, intelligent beings?

If science fiction is any indication, yes.

[SeattleUte]

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...=reincarnation

[Dwight Schr-ute]

This poll needs a list of definitions to clarify where we're coming from. Evolution by it's nature is blind and therefore has no end game. Since you ask if divinity through evolution could happen, then yes. But it would likely be a result of pure chance and by that definition, probably couldn't be considered divinity.

Now, if we're approaching the question from LDS definitions, divinity incorporates us as offspring of a supreme being. The idea of evolving into their perfected state doesn't make any sense as it would require us to take MANY genetic steps backward only then to have to work our way back up.

This would also mean that our forefathers were automatically genetically inferior and therefore disqualified for Celestial glory. Doctrinally, this concept doesn't promote self improvement and development. If anything, developing into a supreme being is nothing more than a skill. Like improving a golf swing.

[clackamascoug]

Yes... Evolution with the aid of a Supreme Being.

The way I look at it, if I was a god, and had a lot of time on my hands to get the job done, tinkering with the creation / evolutionary process would be as much fun as any other part of the process. Let's try this... that didn't work, let's try this... and after a few hundred million years you might just get the hang of what you're doing. It's got to be as much entertaining as golf, I'd think.

[creekster]

No. I'm not. There is no need to include religious notions. I'm simply referring to a supreme being defined however the poll participant defines it, but I am not necessarily referring to divinity.

And yes I understand there is no end game to evolution.

This is a similar question I posed to myself long ago as a young man. I think SU's response on reincarnation is interesting.

Without defining what you mean by the term "supreme being" the poll has very little value, IMO. What does that term mean? Are you referring to an apex predator? or do you mean something that stands outside the physical constraints of our universe and is capable of ex nihilo creation of matter? Or (more likely) something in between?

[woot]

Humans are already supreme, intelligent, and highly advanced, depending on definitions, so the answer has to be yes unless you have a more particular definition of those terms.

[creekster]

No, creekster, I didn't intend an apex predator, nor a "transcendent" or "metaphysical" being.

Yes, woot, I intended something beyond homo sapiens.

I didn't want to confine too much how other people would define a supreme being, but for the sake of this poll, let's keep it to a "naturalistic" being, *not* a metaphysical being. Personally I reject metaphysical notions, such as a "transcendent god" (no ex nihilo, transcendent of logic, outside of natural/physical contraints, etc.), as nonsense. That would include traditional/mainstream-Christian definitions of a omnipotent & omniscient being. There's plenty of philosophical discussion that a omnipotent/omnibenevolent god is an incoherent notion given human suffering.

To clarify, the poll question asks does evolution encompass the possibility of a sentient being, so advanced beyond homo sapiens (but similar to humans) that humans could/would consider that being to be god or god-like.

A corollary question would be, could/would such a being be worthy of worship?

Good thing I didn't stay up late waiting for you to respond to this thread.

I think you are facing the problem of your own poll question and demonstrating it is very difficult if not impossible to answer as phrased. Your clarification is easily answered "yes." but it is not a meaningful conclusion. After all, Homo Sapiens have considered other homo sapiens to be gods. So as a subjective matter it is clearly and easily possible. For that matter, Homo Sapiens have even worshipped non-sentient animals as Gods, so the conclusion is even empirically correct.

As to the corollary question, it is purely subjective, a normative issue for which there is no universally true answer.

Not trying to be difficult, but as phrased it just doesn't seem to go anywhere. If what you're getting at is whether the God that we talk about in monotheistic traditions might actually be a physical entity of a different species who evolved here or on some other planet and through some set of circumstances interacted with our ancestors or some among us, I guess the answer is yes. The universe is a big place. Lots of chances for al sorts of stuff, even without Clack's dimensions.

I don't know if you perused any of our other discussions on omniscience or omnipotence, btw, but there are a fair few threads that talk about it.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Take a tour of the Field Museum with Megan Fox. Nope. Not that Megan Fox. The dumb one.

http://youtu.be/UsxxWQ7KviQ

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/w...roy-evolution/

[Moliere]

Take a tour of the Field Museum with Megan Fox. Nope. Not that Megan Fox. The dumb one.

http://youtu.be/UsxxWQ7KviQ

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/w...roy-evolution/

I love stuff like this.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Take a tour of the Field Museum with Megan Fox. Nope. Not that Megan Fox. The dumb one.

http://youtu.be/UsxxWQ7KviQ

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/w...roy-evolution/

That is awesome.

If you watch nothing else, check out the part from 18:00 - 21:00 minutes where she shows that scientists are hiding the truth about dragons.

[clackamascoug]

I like Megan's sense of self. She'd be fun to know.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

That is awesome.

If you watch nothing else, check out the part from 18:00 - 21:00 minutes where she shows that scientists are hiding the truth about dragons.

Shhhhhh. I was trying not to tip anyone off of the conspiracy.