Ted
>Now wait, if we don't know enough about the nature of the design
> to say anything about the designer, how can we even conclude
>with any degree of confidence that it is design at all?
Bertvan:
Hi Ted,
I don't know many things with such a degree of confidence that I would try to
impose them upon anyone else. I merely suggest people examine "random
mutation and natural selection" to determine if that is something they really
believe explains macro evolution. If so, fine. If not, I suggest design is
a possible alternative.
>> Bertvan:
>> I have no objection to suggesting "nature" as the designer
> >(whatever "nature " is). However I have a hard time thinking
> >of anything resulting from "random mutation and natural selection"
> >as designed. I'm forced to seek more rational mechanisms.
Ted:
> Why, specifically, is the former conclusion irrational?
> I may have a hard time thinking that a massive oak tree can result
> from a tiny acorn, but that is only because I erroneously
>assume that something so small can not possibly contain
>the potential for something so large.
Bertvan:
Since many people believe it, it is obviously not irrational. I merely seek
something MORE rational. Believing an oak can result from an acorn doesn't
necessarily compel belief in "random mutation and natural selection".
Ted:
> So the designer is something like a god? Why is that view less naive?
> For analogy, it sounds like I'm proposing a "horse", and you're
>proposing a "unicorn", and you call my proposal naive.
Bertvan:
Some people believe the designer is "something like a god", however I, and a
few others, have stated repeatedly that we do not. (Is your suggestion of
"unicorn" sarcasm? I've heard no one believing in ID making such a
suggestion.) Some of us choose not to speculate about the nature of the
designer. Actually, my personal belief is that much of the designing is done
by life itself -- not by "random mutation and natural selection", but by the
accumulation of choices exercised by all life. Scientific evidence for such
a process might be developed - but anyone believing "random mutation and
natural selection" an adequate explanation would probably not bother looking
for it. Spetner is beginning to.
Ted:
> Yes, I'm suggesting that intelligence and morality are linked.
> As for immoral humans, the key point is not presence of intelligence
>but lack of knowledge. Immorality is invariably linked to lack
>of knowledge about consequences, lack of knowledge of the
>"humanness" of those affected, and perhaps a preference for
>one's "animal" impulses over rational thought (but that I would
>characterize as a lack of intelligence since intelligence never
>used is fairly indistinguishable from little intelligence).
>An advanced intelligence that has been around long enough to
>accumulate the knowledge required to do gene manipulation would
>likely have advanced morality that would be violated by
>the use of what is called the evolutionary process.
Bertvan:
Your belief that intelligence and morality are linked is probably not shared
by most people. In any case, it is a philosophical conclusion. The way you
refer to "animal instincts" suggests you do not attribute intelligence to any
part of nature but homo sapiens. Some of us define intelligence differently.
Ted:
> There is obviously a threshold of intelligence for behavior
>that we associate most directly with morality that is not
>achieved in most mammals.
>I think you regard such speculation rationally flawed, not
>fruitless, and your criticism of my speculation makes up
> most of this post. :)
Bertvan:
So you believe intelligence not tied to morality can exist in animals but not
in homo sapiens? Can you define and identify that "threshold" where
intelligence is tied to morality? I don't regard other people's speculations
and beliefs "rationally flawed". I believe the most valuable intellectual
results are achieved from a conflict of beliefs - not from unanimity. But
since you define morality as "maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain",
perhaps you see no possible value in conflict. Many Christians believe homo
sapiens to be the ultimate goal of the creation of the universe. Your
belief in intelligence as linked to some human morality, defined by you as
maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, seems reminiscent of that concept.
Ted:
> No, I stated that the *goal* of morality can be reduced to that.
>Religious believers use that goal as well, only they believe
>that pleasure and pain goes beyond death.
Bertvan:
I'm not sure you can speak for all religious believers.
Bertvan:
> > However,
>> I'm still puzzled by your obsession with morality. Is the
>> following your position: Since you see morality tied to
>> intelligence (which I don't), and since suffering exists, nature
>> isn't moral, and therefore can't be the result of a rational
> >design?
Ted:
> Yes, that's my position if the ID is not a Christian-like God
> entity. (If the ID is a Christian-like God, my argument still
> applies but is complicated by the fact that this ID can ressurect
>the dead and reward and even reverse suffering. Hopefully when I
>get the time for a response to Mike's posts I'll talk more about
>this.)
Bertvan:
Since my position does not include a Christian-like God, we can forget about
"resurrection and rewarded suffering".
Ted:
> Advanced intelligence and morality are seen only in human beings
> and morality seems to require intelligence. Further, advanced
> intelligence combined with knowledge leads to advanced morality.
> (I understand this conflicts with a great deal of religious
> assumptions but I would submit the human race as proof:
> our morality today is clearly far more advanced-- more
> concerned about human suffering-- than it was at any time in
> the past. And this is despite the apparent "corruption and decay
> of the moral fabric of society" that many conservative
> religious believers go on about).
> If we propose intelligence in the design of life, it is more
> reasonable to propose an organism something like human beings
> constrained by the laws of physics then to propose, say, Jehovah
>or Zeus or some other unnamed entity with god-like powers.
Bertvan:
You submit the human race as proof of what? That intelligence and morality
are necessarily linked? Whose morality? My morality is not defined as
"maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain". I would regard a universe without
pain or conflict as trivial and meaningless. (I suspect the designer,
whatever it is, agrees. :-) ) What "appears reasonable" to you doesn't
necessarily "appear reasonable" to me. To me it appears more reasonable to
recognize the evidence of intelligence in nature, while admitting ignorance
of whether that intelligence is the result of laws of physics or something
else. Now if you care to specify WHICH laws of physics are involved, I
would give that serious consideration. You seem to believe human morality,
and therefore the intelligence, has increased in historical times. How? By
random mutation and natural selection? The less moral dying off or leaving
fewer offspring? If you claim the difference is explained by "more
information" rather than greater intelligence, that would seen to contradict
your position that intelligence and morality are necessarily linked.
(Greater morality isn't necessarily greater intelligence.) Surely you don't
insist information equals intelligence. Huge accumulations of informatiion
can exist with complete absence of intelligence.
> Bertvan:
> > Those who see no evidence for teleology in nature will continue
>> to see no need for an ID explanation. Those who do see evidence
>> for teleology will probably consider ID. Is not seeing evidence
>> of teleology in nature obligatory to being a scientist?
Ted:
> What evidence in nature can be said to obviously require an ID
> explanation? How is this specifically different from the Grand
> Canyon?
Bertvan:
Volumes have been written about the evidence for teleology in nature.
Repeating it here would be pointless. Obviously it does not "require" ID,
since many rational people reject such an explanation. However, I repeat my
question: Is NOT seeing evidence of teleology in nature obligatory to being a
scientist?
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 20 2000 - 13:20:59 EDT