From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Sat Aug 09 2003 - 09:25:21 EDT
>From: "Iain Strachan" <iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com>
Last paragraph only:
> I do not believe that an evolutionary environment would produce such a
> program unless the programmer of the algorithm built in a list of
> predecessor functions, each of which was a small step from the last one, and
> each of which was defined to have slightly greater "fitness" than the last
> one. Without doubt, that would be "Intelligent design", and would probably
> require a much greater degree of intelligence than it took to write the
> algorithm in the first place :-)
Iain,
It is very appropriate that you chose to place the term "intelligent design"
in quotation marks here. You have used the term in a way that is consistent
with ordinary contemporary usage of words like "intelligent" and "design" --
both focusing on qualities or acts of a mind.
Members of this list are probably weary of my saying so, but when discussing
the merits of ID claims regarding the "intelligent design" of biotic
systems, we must keep in mind that to be "intelligently designed" in the ID
sense means to be assembled (from atoms or molecular segments) in such a way
as to require one or more episodes of non-natural, form-conferring
intervention by an unidentified, unembodied, choice-making agent. This is
also sometimes accompanied by the additional and remarkable assertion that
this action is not necessarily miraculous.
Everyone on this list knows of my low evaluation of ID claims, and I expect
some candid disagreement. The point of my repeated reminders regarding what
ID advocates mean by their key term is that we need to know what ID claims
are before we can evaluate their merits.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Aug 09 2003 - 09:29:58 EDT