Re: Novel paradigms?

From: MikeBGene@aol.com
Date: Sat Apr 22 2000 - 15:41:40 EDT

  • Next message: Steve Clark: "Re: Novel paradigms?"

    In a message dated 4/22/00 6:55:01 AM Dateline Standard Time,
    hvantill@novagate.com writes:

    >Thanks for being willing to say it so candidly. That's why I have been
    >saying that what is called "ID Theory" would be more accurately called
    >"Extra-natural Assembly Theory" because of the key role played by occasional
    >form-imposing interventions performed by an extra-natural agent.

    But it would not be more accurate in my case. For one thing, the
    extra-natural
    agent I envision need be no more extra-natural than Howard Van Till.
    Secondly,
    you lose much of the methodological constraints I employ with such a name
    change, as I envision such intelligent intervention to reflect rationality
    and this
    element is completely lost with your name change.

    Furthermore, this business of a key role is often misunderstood. I do not
    view the key role from a philosophical perspective, but a historical
    perspective.
    That is, the key role of intelligent intervention is not a question of
    forming life
    or chordates (as those things might very well have formed at some point
    without intelligent intervention), but in explaining why *this* reality
    exists rather than a near
    infinite number of other possible realities that could have existed. If
    intelligent intervention was part of history, of course it played a key role
    in generating *this* reality. Just as Howard's very existence and
    intelligent intervention has played
    a key role behind the existence of *his* arguments. If Howard had died as a
    child,
    would the formational capabilities of the universe have provided a complete
    substitute such that on April 22, 2000, I would be having the exact same
    argument, just with
    someone else?

    Look at it this way. Is Howard's existence really required to explain the
    existence of his arguments? From one perspective, we might say no. That is,
    it would not have been impossible for someone else to have converged on the
    same form of argument had Howard never existed. But to explain to existence
    of Howard's actual argument, we have to invoke Howard's intelligent
    intervention. Why? Not because it was required, but because that's how it
    happened.

    Mike



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 22 2000 - 15:42:26 EDT