Re: [asa] Timaeus--ID isn't "god of the gaps"

Hi Gregory,

“"Minds don't willfully 'evolve' things (e.g. artificial things) due to the non-intentional, non-agency, non-teleological meaning of 'evolution' as portrayed in biological sciences.”

What minds do is control things. Are you saying it would be impossible for a mind to use evolution to carry out an objective because most biologists perceive evolution to be a non-telic process? I’m not sure I understand your problem.

“The 'as if' would appear to be highly speculative (verging on psycho-philosophical) without some additional appeal.”

All investigations must begin with speculations built upon clues. Without speculation, you are left with convention. There is nothing wrong with speculation, especially when it stimulates the mind.

- Mike

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: asa@calvin.edu ; Nucacids
  Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 7:41 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Timaeus--ID isn't "god of the gaps"

        Mike Gene wrote: "As if a mind used evolution to carry out an objective."

        Please excuse, but this seems non-sensical. How could a 'mind' carry out 'an evolution'? There seems to be a contradiction here. Minds don't 'evolve' due to the non-intentional, non-agency, non-teleological meaning of 'evolution' as portrayed in biological sciences. Surely you would not argue that biologists admit of 'intention,' 'agency' or 'teleology' in the majority, a.k.a. in the 'consensus' available in the field of biology today?

        The 'as if' would appear to be highly speculative (verging on psycho-philosophical) without some additional appeal.

        Gregory

        --- On Wed, 11/5/08, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:

          From: Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com>
          Subject: Re: [asa] Timaeus--ID isn't "god of the gaps"
          To: asa@calvin.edu
          Received: Wednesday, November 5, 2008, 3:22 AM

          Hi Randy,

          “I need some specifics to help me understand it. Can you give me an example from biochemistry or other aspects of living cells where there is no discontinuity but the other three criteria "score strongly positive?"”

          Given the subjective nature of the criteria, I don’t think it is a good idea to begin with a specified outcome and fish around for something to fit the specified outcome. The investigation should remain open-ended and the scores applied after a serious investigation (at least, a serious review of the literature). So now, I don’t have any examples, as I have not done that work (I did preliminary scoring for the book to illustrate and calibrate). So far, I have been trying to keep up with the stuff that is relevant to the hypothesis of front-loading.

          “I can't figure out what that would mean or what it would look like.”

          A feature that shows strong analogy to something known to be designed, distinct signals of rational design and foresight, yet good evidence of continuity. As if a mind used evolution to carry out an objective.

          “And why is analogy so high?”

          I don’t understand this question.

          “Perhaps I need to read more of your writing about these criteria. I don't understand them nor why these are the right criteria. I'm not at all saying you are wrong. I'm just saying I don't understand. As usual, it seems.”

          Long story – the criteria stem from a consideration of a) the Face on Mars and b) the attributes of the blind watchmaker. Sounds weird, yeah, so perhaps when I get time (and desire), I’ll provide some synopsis. Suffice it to say now that I did not invent the criteria – they all have an independent history of being used to argue AGAINST design. An intellectually honest approach would recognize it’s a two way street.

          All of this is interesting, but the point I laid on the table was simply that the god-of-the-gaps complaint fails against my approach. That point stands.

          - Mike

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Randy Isaac
            To: asa@calvin.edu
            Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 11:32 AM
            Subject: Re: [asa] Timaeus--ID isn't "god of the gaps"

            I need some specifics to help me understand it. Can you give me an example from biochemistry or other aspects of living cells where there is no discontinuity but the other three criteria "score strongly positive?" I can't figure out what that would mean or what it would look like. And why is analogy so high? Perhaps I need to read more of your writing about these criteria. I don't understand them nor why these are the right criteria. I'm not at all saying you are wrong. I'm just saying I don't understand. As usual, it seems.

            Randy

            Mike wrote:

              I don't use the explanatory filter.

              "What happens to the argument if there is NO discontinuity?" It depends on the score for the other three criteria - analogy, rationality, and foresight. If they score strongly positive, then I'd score the thing in question as an example of teleologic/guided evolution.

              Mike

--------------------------------------------------------------------

            No virus found in this incoming message.
            Checked by AVG.
            Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.6/1766 - Release Date: 11/4/2008 8:26 AM
       

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG.
  Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.6/1766 - Release Date: 11/4/2008 8:26 AM

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 4 23:34:39 2008