http://thinkingproblemmanagement.blogspot.com/2008/11/cradle-of-humankind.html

I think what I really mean is I don’t see how this rules out the idea of a changing system governed by superior intelligence/s to humans.

To put it another way, it doesn’t rule out such a being but it does render it entirely unnecessary and superfluous.

I think what I really mean is I don’t see how this rules out the idea of a changing system governed by superior intelligence/s to humans.

It doesn’t.

However, consider this. We know of natural processes that can explain the entirety of the diversity of life around us today. There is no evidence of teleology in the development of the modern biosphere. There is no evidence of the existence of any “superior intelligence”.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the processes that we have observed and that we understand have indeed shaped life into its present myriad forms.

In the absence of supporting evidence, it is illogical to assume the existence of some kind of “superior intelligence”. If one does assume the existence of a “superior intelliegence”, this raises more questions that it answers (the nature of these questions depending on the kind of motivations one assigns to the “superior intelligence”).

I’m not sold on the idea that this is proof of ‘evolution’ at work however. I see change, and growth and such, and can see the links between life and minerals pointed out here, and can see how this change can be attributed to evolution as it is understood in the current popular view. It really depends on what flavour of evolution you what to describe I guess. I think what I really mean is I don’t see how this rules out the idea of a changing system governed by superior intelligence/s to humans.