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

Wouldn't animal husbandry and the like be an example of a mind using
evolution to carry out an objective? An end goal may be in mind (a breed of
dog with these particular features accentuated, a plant with these features,
etc) and a process of controlled breeding follows, resulting in the desired
outcome?

As an aside - I see a lot of value in Mike's DM and his writings in general.
Personally, I don't think science is capable of ruling on questions of
design at the level Christianity requires one way or the other. On the other
hand, I also don't think science is the sole route to knowledge or learning,
so I welcome the attempts to identify design all the same.

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:49 AM, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> "It makes no sense to speak of 'a mind using evolution to carry out an
> objective'." - G. Arago
>
> "I don't think we are on the same page, as an idea that makes no sense to
> you makes a lot of sense to me. Minds enlist and recruit all sorts of
> processes to carry out objectives. For example, the Casino owner uses games
> of chance to carry out the objective of making a profit. Or, to offer a
> more relevant hypothetical, I have no trouble envisioning minds using
> evolution to carry out the objective of terraforming a planet. Or carefully
> choosing the structure/architecture of life such that a nervous system was
> likely to evolve into existence." - Mike Gene
>
> Glad to have the discussion move into this realm. Let me address your
> concerns Mike, and I want to stress the importance of communication here,
> e.g. what people mean when they use a word, concept or idea. The biology is
> not as important for me as the communication.
> You say: "Minds enlist and recruit all sorts of processes to carry out
> objectives."
>
> We are agreed.
>
> Then you write: "the Casino owner uses games of chance to carry out the
> objective of making a profit."
>
> Yes and no. Surely you are not suggesting that 'evolution' is synonymous
> with 'games of chance'? The Casino owner intentionally, purposefully, with a
> plan and goal (e.g. profit) uses games of chance that take time to play. I'm
> afraid you are confusing 'it happened' (the Casino's operational history, in
> this case not natural, but human-social history) with 'it evolved.' Due to
> the inclusion of intention, purpose, plan and goal, whereas in the meaning
> of 'biological evolution' there is no intention, purpose, plan or goal, what
> the Casino owner does is not and should not be called 'evolution.' His is
> not an example of 'a mind using evolution to carry out an objective.' He is
> just using games of chance, or lottery, raffle, drawing lots, etc. to
> achieve a goal. To be clear, as it seems the following was your main point,
> Mike, I'm surely not denying that games of chance exist and are used.
>
> Further, Mike writes: "to offer a more relevant hypothetical, I have no
> trouble envisioning minds using evolution to carry out the objective of
> terraforming a planet."
>
> Actually, I find this much less relevant as it is higly speculative and
> there is no evidence of this having happened. Which 'minds' do you have in
> mind here Mike? Please be specific. Thought experiments belong in
> philosophy; in science you should do other experiments too. Have you done
> any other experiments than a thought experiment (i.e. what you call a
> 'relevant hypothetical) to support your position?
>
> That you have no trouble envisioning (or imagining) such a scenario does
> not mean there is any truth to it. If you are speculating about human minds,
> however, and suggesting the possibility that at some time in the
> hypothetical future our technology *may* allow us to travel to another
> planet, i.e. to 'terraform' it, then I can see the point. You would be
> taking the perspective of a person that is known to exist, speaking
> futuristically about the dreams of some actual human scientists to transform
> the universe by leaving planet Earth. But not if you would take the
> perspective and place the mental agency in unembodied, unspecified
> beings/creatures/aliens, something way-far hypothetical; there is no
> explanatory power in such a point of view.
>
> As for the Casino owner, I can walk down the street and find an actual
> person fitting this description, an example of this. I can thus 'prove' a
> Casino owner uses his or her mind to carry out an objective using games of
> chance. But, as I've argued, there's nothing 'evolutionary' about the
> choices he or she makes; i.e. in making things. In your view, 'evolution' is
> an instrument that can be used or it is just 'natural history' as history
> 'unfolds'. In my view, as a social-humanitarian scientist, it is an ideology
> that can be abused to try to account for things in which it makes no sense
> to apply the term 'evolution' or the verb 'to evolve.' In biology, evolution
> seems (at least to me, a non-biologist) to be fine, but not when it comes to
> minds (and we are almost always talking about human beings when we speak of
> minds).
>
> "Or carefully choosing the structure/architecture of life such that a
> nervous system was likely to evolve into existence."
>
> Again, Mike, it does me no help to understand what you are suggesting here.
> Which 'mind/Mind' is 'carefully choosing'? If you cannot respond to this,
> then there is no reason to accept that we are talking about the same thing.
> I believe RBH struck an important note about this to Telic Thoughts with his
> 'multiple designer theory' - and his was an anthropic perspective too!
>
> Thus, my conclusion:
>
> Human minds do use all sorts of processes, just not evolutionary ones.
> Human selection and natural selection are fundamentally different things
> (which ties into my response to Jim's comment).
>
> G. Arago
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *Yahoo! Canada Toolbar :* Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark
> your favourite sites. Download it now! <http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com/>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 6 08:53:53 2008