Shall we then agree to use design in an objective sense?
> > The bible is not scientific in any sense so should not be used as
> evidence
> > of the existance of such a supernatural force. It is very well possible
> > that a designer acts through random acts which is the only viable
> > hypothesis of intelligent design.
>
> Adrian: Again, this sounds like a contradiction to me - a designer acting
> in
> random.
>
> Not necessarily if one accepts the idea that the experiment was design
> through random acts. Although random is not the only part, a deterministic
> component of natural selection needs to be added.
I don't follow. Can you please elaborate on how a designer would act in
random?
> > That a designer created the cosmos
> > through a big bang and let naturalistic forces take its turn. Sort of a
> > giant experiment.
>
> Adrian: Sort of a deistic position.
>
> If that is what you want to call it, sure.
>
> > SJ: An Intelligent Designer may have designed all the laws and initial
> > conditions of the universe in such a way that the design of living
> > creatures is *real* not apparent:
>
> > True but then again chance could have done this as well through
> > naturalistic forces so this explanation would fail under the Occam razor.
>
> Adrian: Actually, chance cannot be used as a causal mechanism. I think the
> use
> of chance is to explain something is a major violation of the Razor. How
> different is it from using the "God did it" explanation?
>
> It does not require a supernatural entity.
But chance is pure abstraction.
> Chance can surely be used as a
> causal explanation. For instance the hypothesis that this universe is
> merely an example of a random quantum fluctuation. Or the formation of the
> steps leading to 'life' for instance.
Chance is a non-entity. It may be a useful statistical concept, but to
use it as a cause is to say that there is no cause. Chance has no
material content. Take for example, a coin toss. What influence does
chance has on getting the coin to come up heads? None, whatsoever.
Chance cannot influence - it is merely a description of mathematical
possibilities. Arguing for chance as a cause is arguing against logic.
> When looking at design, the apparant design could point to an intelligent
> designer or to a confusion in interpretation of the 'design'. That at a
> biological level, organisms tend to show systems which appear to be
> well-suited for their task need not point to a designer but could, as
> hypothesized, also be caused by a combination of random variation and a
> deterministic force like natural selection.
How does random variation cause anything? How much influence does random
variation have on a system? Random variation or chance is a non-being.
How can a non-being have instrumental power? To suggest that a system is
cause by a non-being is to argue that the system is self-created.
Self-creation is a violation of the law of noncontradiction.
-- ******************************Adrian TeoInstitute of Child DevelopmentUniversity of MinnesotaE-mail: AdrianTeo@mailhost.net******************************