Re: [asa] The Agent and the Mousetrap

*The trouble is with Angus is that he refuses to be clear on the age of the
earth and sits on the fence. With an attitude like that he is really doing
his philosophy in a vacuum*

I have to admit that this kind of thing disturbs me too, and that if he is
YEC I probably wouldn't listen to anything he has to say. But this book
doesn't have anything to do with the age of the Earth or uniformitarian
assumptions or anything like that, so I guess my feelings in that regard
wouldn't be fair. His critique of strong and weak agent reductionism seems
to be one that any non-reductive theory of mind would relate to. (Recently
I picked up Nancey Murphy's book on mind and look forward to seeing her
position).

But I'd really like to hear about his criteria for exaptation. Are they
reasonable? Do the papers Miller likes to cite really meet them?

On 10/20/06, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> The trouble is with Angus is that he refuses to be clear on the age of the
earth and sits on the fence. With an attitude like that he is really doing
his philosophy in a vacuum
>
> Michael
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Opderbeck
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 9:40 PM
> Subject: [asa] The Agent and the Mousetrap
>
>
> I've been reading Angus Menuge's book "Agents Under Fire." His critique
of "strong" and "weak" agent reductionism is interesting in its own right.
He tries to bolster that critique with a broader critique of Darwinism based
on irreducible complexity. He responds to a number of standard objections
to IC, including the theory that apparently IC systems could have developed
through co-optation. His response to the co-optation scenario seems fairly
strong.
>
> Why is co-optation considered a slam dunk in light of responses like
Menuge's? Also, aside from his critique of Darwinism, any thoughts on the
philosophical critique of SAR and WAR?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Oct 22 15:31:59 2006