In a message dated 9/28/2000 1:51:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Bertvan@aol.com writes:
> Bertvan:
> I thoroughly agree. Understanding of evolution is evolving, not randomly
> (and natural selection plays absolutely no role), but by individual
> judgements of individual people. The position I take, and the position you
>
Actually judgements of individual people are not good examples of our
understanding of evolution evolving. Our understanding is evolving through
new data.
> take both play a part in the outcome. We both claim intelligence is
> involved. Some scientists (probably a majority) have tried to impose a
> certain interpretation of the evidence (Darwinism). We will see how long
> they are successful.
>
"Tried to impose" suggests something that Bertvan cannot support. At least
Bertvan seems to insinuate, incorrectly, that some scientists (probably a
majority) have imposed a view against all evidence. What is however the
reality? The Darwinian explanation (or more correctly neo-Darwinian
explanation) not only is the best explanation for the given evidence but it
also is founded on principles seen in biology. There is at this moment no
alternative explanation that can describe the given evidence in a scientific
manner better than (Neo)Darwinian evolution. Does this mean that their long
track record of succes will continue? Of course not, IF new evidence that new
theories can better explain then a focus shift is needed.
It is an interesting attempt to make scientists look dogmatic for chosing the
best theory to match the data but such rethoric only works well in the court
rooms.
> Bertvan:
> This shows our different definition of the word "designed". To you it
> requires a designer. To me it merely means the result of rational,
> intelligent, choices, as opposed to chance events.
I am happy to hear that you consider natural selection "intelligent" then as
opposed to chance events. So why are you opposed to natural selection and
mutation when in fact it has been shown that these mechanisms work?
> >Chris:
> >And the biosphere, even more obviously than cultures and economies, shows
> >all the signs of *unintelligent* evolution.
>
> Bertvan:
> I seen nothing unintelligent about the evolution of the biosphere. Acts of
> symbiosis are usually performed to the benefit of at least one, and often
> both, of the organisms involved.
>
Cool, it seems that your definition of intelligence accepts that natural
selection can be the intelligent designer. Indeed as Wesley has shown, even
the ID movement seems to have to accept this conclusion. Or perhaps some
ID'er would like to point out the errors in Wesley's excellent analysis? So
far no takers as far as I can tell.
> Chris
> >In a metaphorical sense only. Bacteria respond to chemical differentials,
> >light, temperature, and physical contact, so a bacterium will "pursue"
> >another even if the other isn't even there, as long as the chemical or
> >other signals are there. It is essentially mechanically responding to
> >stimuli. The "choices" of DNA show no signs of being any more
> "intelligent"
> >than the "choices" of a computer program.
>
> Bertvan:
> Even people can be fooled by a paper tiger, but you have no idea how
> bacteria
> "know" to pursue or flee from certain signals. As to DNA being no more
> "intelligent" a computer program, I'll agree when you build a computer
> actually capable of creating complex organic systems. (With or without
> computer programs designed by humans.)
>
Define complex organic systems and why is this the only evidence that would
fit your view? Perhaps you could show as DNA being able to calculate the
forces and reactions in a nuclear explosion? You see, creating a strawman is
hardly effective.
> Chris:
> >Does a rock tend to continue to move in whatever direction it's already
> >moving in because it *chooses* to, does a knife choose to cut?
>
> Bertvan:
> These are not live organisms. For an understanding of how multicelled
> organisms came into existence, we might study the slime mold.
Indeed we have seen how under predation single cellular organisms mutate into
colonies. Is intelligence required? That depends on the definition of
intelligence.
It can be
> individual organisms pursuing their own interests or it can combine to
> pursue
> the interest of the whole. Can you declare with certainty no intelligence
> is
> required to know when to do each?
Yes. Can you even show that intelligence is required and if so, can you show
evidence of this intelligence? Why not?
If the parts are "forced" into such
> cooperative behavior, what forces them? I don't think we know enough about
> the process to say anything -- unless we already have a philosophical
> prejudice against the existence of intelligence.
>
If we are willing to redefine intelligence to mean whatever seems intelligent
to us then the word intelligence loses its meaning. There is no prejudice
against intelligence when intelligence can mean anything. But then one has to
ask: What's the meaning of intelligence. My response is as I have responded
to the ID argument: Nothing. Intelligent is that which escaped from the
filter of chance and regularity.
> Bertvan
> I actually don't consider them supernatural. However supernatural is how
> materialists often label phenomena they can neither measure, analyze, nor
> predict their effects.
>
Such as ? And support your assertion that this is supernatural. You seem to
be confusing two terms here.
>
> Bertvan:
> This is the materialist view of mind. A computer can store and sort and
> compare information. Some of us suspect mind can do more.
>
Sure and if those "some of us" could actually provide support for their
views, they might eventually even have a scientific argument.
> Don't always enjoy your criticisms, but this seemed sincere and lacking in
> hyperbole. Thanks.
>
Hyperbole such as it seems was employed by you at the beginning of this
message? Was that an insincere form of hyperbole, a sincere form of hyperbole
or perhaps something else? It's fascinating to see my irony meter just go off
the scale.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 29 2000 - 12:18:09 EDT