Bertvan
>> My version of ID is that life is designed by the intelligence contained
>>within life itself.
Steve C:
>What in the world does this mean? Perhaps you should tell us what you mean
>by "intelligence".
Hi Steve C:
First, do you characterize yourself as a materialist? I don't mean anything
derogatory by the term; just a philosophy very different from mine.
Coming up with a definition of "intelligence" with which everyone agrees
could be as difficult as articulating a philosophy that satisfies everyone.
However it might be stimulating to compare thoughts on such an effort. I
might tentatively define intelligence as the ability to make choices based
upon information. I realize that many materialists don't believe choice
exists, even for humans. If such is your position, we'd have to agree to
disagree at this point. However, if you accept the concept of choice, humans
obviously have more power to choose than other organisms. If we grant any
degree of ability to override instincts and other natural constraints to
humans, how could we know where to stop? Chimps? Cats and dogs? Reptiles?
Probably some people would insist that a mind, or intelligence, could not
exist in the absence of a physical brain, but I doubt that could be proved.
I've even heard that some plants have some ability to "choose " the
fertilization they accept. One-celled organisms pursue, devour and escape
from each other, and give the appearance of choice. We can't even state for
certain that DNA, if alive, doesn't have some small power of choice.
If you have another definition of intelligence, I wouldn't wish to impose my
definition (or philosophy) upon anyone. Too many people seem convinced that
if consensus could be achieved, if everyone thought like them, the world
would be a lovely place. Wrong! It would mean stagnation, and the end of
all growth or development. The beauty of the design of the universe is the
presence of diversity and conflict, the existence of evil as well as beauty,
the ability to grow. I think Cliff's analogy to the economy is apt.
Nature's growth is the accumulation of many tiny actions of the individual
pieces of nature, and if those pieces are alive, any change came about, IMHO,
by individual choices, not randomly. (As the Darwinists point out, the
changes were so tiny and gradual that no one could prove either chance or
choice.) Some people fear the choices humans are making might destroy the
earth, and growth was more sustainable when the limited choices available to
the rest of nature were all that existed. Myself, I suspect we are part of
the design.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 19 2000 - 18:16:47 EDT