Bob:
> I do not see "design events" (which is Tim's term, not mine) to be either-or
> events, i.e., either by natural agents or non-natural ones. I suggest that a
> better conceptual approach is "both-and", somewhat in the way that multiple
> variables are studied in the social sciences by analysis of variance.
So "design events" includes both planning and assembling by both natural and
non-natural agents. Isn't this getting to be an awfully large and nebulous
category?
> Somehow we need to devise methods for sorting out non-natural and natural
> agents in a given phenomenon and if possible assessing the contribution of
> each agent. If, however, you are unwilling to grant legitimacy to
> non-natural agents, then this proposal would not seem to make sense to you.
Whether or not I favor the inclusion of non-natural agent action in the
universe's formational history is secondary here. What I am asking for is
clear and candid communication. Given the confusion over the meaning of
terms like "design events," I think that explicit clarification is generally
called for.
> How to identify intelligent causes is, of course, the big problem. Let me
> suggest that reverse engineering holds some promise. As biological systems
> are increasingly being described in mechanical terminology--the cell as a
> factory, biological motors, etc.--it should be possible to develop something
> like a flow chart on how the system was assembled, what parts were used, and
> where they came from. This would have to be done non-defensively, with no
> preconception that ID did it all, or that evolution did it all.
Sorry, but I find this last statement very confusing. It sounds like things
are done _either_ by ID _or_ by evolution. Is that what you meant? Would it
be the case, then, that a designed universe would not be capable of
actualizing certain potential forms, or that a non-designed universe would
be capable of supporting evolution?
>>From this it would perhaps be possible to determine at what points new
> information had to be infused into the system for the assembly to go forward.
> These would most likely be those points in which the experimenter had to
> intervene. From this it might be possible to determine the differential
> contribution of natural agents, (where the assembly ran smoothly with no
> intervention) and the contribution of outside intelligence to the total
> result.
>
> Your portrayal of divine action as "artisan, crafts/assembler" makes it sound
> pretty ham-handed. How about Polyani's "profoundly informative intervention"
> where the emphasis is on information rather than artisanship?
I think you are responding to Tim here, but I will offer one comment. In
biotic systems, information is embodied in particular molecular structures.
That being the case, one cannot talk about 'information' in the abstract
without talking about how things achieved their structure.
Howard
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 02 2001 - 10:18:26 EDT