It's interesting to think that those believing in Intelligent Design--a recent bit of Christian pseudoscience--would try and convince us that our intelligence was created, not evolved. It seems to me that, having set such a precedence, i.e. that intelligence can be created, such people would have to be strong proponents of the possibility of so-called true artificial intelligence. In other words, they surely must believe that, if we keep increasing our understanding of life and the universe, there is no reason why we could not create our own intelligent, albeit inorganic, beings. If not, then at the very least they would have to believe we will be able to uplift other creatures to intelligence. After all, God may have created the first intelligent species (perhaps, the jury is still out...) but he still had to follow the rules of the universe, rules that we can learn and use ourselves.
Sadly, I'm willing to bet that very few Intelligent Design proponents actually believe that humans will have either ability (AI or uplifts). And this is one of my big beefs with religion. It sets us at the center of the universe while telling us that we are either not allowed or too stupid to go anywhere else. Apparently, we were just supposed to sit quietly in our paleolithic caves and wait for salvation (oops, except most modern religions hadn't been invented at that time).
A response to some comments:
Can't feed the people, but we feed the machines
A prophetic line from the Canadian rock band Rush in 1985. In someways, today the situation is even worse. We are getting to the point where we can't afford to feed either the people or the machines. And when we can, we choose to feed the machines. I mean, how messed up are our priorities when, due to the rising costs of oil, we have devoted food crops to producing fuel for machines while millions starve each year. You'd be laughed at if you ever put something like this in a novel. Reality really is stranger than fiction.
Ten years on, the duo shacked up, a wimpy stance on stem cell research, lots of God, and no aliens. Who's crazy idea was it to diverge so strongly from the main theme of the entire series for the new movie? [and just what is it with Hollywood's return to the big red scare lately? Everywhere you look the Russians are back as the bad guys?!]
The RIAA (the Recording Industry Association of America) would have us believe that sharing/downloading mp3s/movies is like stealing cars or televisions. We are told this almost constantly in the news, before movies in the cinema, etc. Most people find this difficult to believe at least for the obvious reason that, once a TV is stolen, it is no longer in the store. But once an mp3/movie is downloaded, it still exists with the 'supplier'.
However, what has occurred to me recently, is that P2P sharing of mp3s/movies is less like traditional theft and more like...giving to charity. One steals a TV or car in order to make money, which is to say, to resell it. Instead, most people who trade mp3s online do not do it for the money, but rather to sample what is there, to reacquire songs they once owned but lost, or other similarly non-capitalistic reasons--appreciation, for example.
Thus, P2P sharing is more similar to taking your old clothes to a charity, than it is to stealing a new TV.
As a post script, the RIAA and movie industries claim huge losses due to downloads. Indeed, this is the prime driving force behind the current 'awareness' campaign (and lawsuits). However, I beg to differ with their interpretation. In reality, if the internet (or P2P) didn't exist and the songs/movies couldn't be downloaded, most of them would never be acquired by these people. That is, the people doing much of the downloading (apart from those doing it as a business--and these people are not targeted by the RIAA) would not be buying the CDs/DVDs anyway. Most of these people just download as a collector might and probably never listen to most of the songs they download--and would definitely not be buying them. So, in effect, P2P has not lost the companies much money and has actually gained them a free advertising venue. Unfortunately, the typical, dollar-signs-in-their-eyes executives are unable to see reality through their imaginary financial losses. Anyway, anyone that's traveled some of the world can tell them that their real losses are coming from the mass downloaders that package and resell the CDs/DVDs more cheaply than the original, something that happens in the Mediterranean countries, the middle east and southeast Asia. I've seen stores in Middle East shopping centers that have the knock-off media proudly displayed in the front of the store and will mention to you that you can also buy the more expensive original, if you want, in the back.
Sometimes I feel like Anakin in Revenge of the Sith: 'Something's wrong...I'm not the Jedi I should be.'
More and more westerners understand, at least at a subconscious level, that money is not the answer. Unfortunately, we've moved so far down the path in pursuit of it that it now seems we've lost sight of what the answer is.
Don't believe me? Countries of the western world have the highest suicide rates. We live in the most luxurious conditions, with the best jobs and highest standards of living. Yet we commit suicide more frequently than any other culture. If money was the answer, shouldn't we enjoy life more, not less?
The only thing religion actually teaches is how to blindly follow an ideal.
None of the 'rules to live by' espoused by religion (ten commandments, etc.) are specific to deities or especially to any one deity. They can be arrived at just as well through secular reasoning, thus, they are independent of religion. Therefore, when stripping away all that can be learned either secularly or through sacred means, we are left with only this one fact.
Currently, high school student's can do molecular biology experiments that required most of the duration of a Ph.D., and a lot of hard work, in the '70s--only 40 years ago. So...what will the situation be 40 years from now? The fear is that it will be trivial for almost anyone with the desire to create a genocidal pathogen.