Reflectorites
On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 15:32:49 -0800, Cliff Lundberg wrote:
[...]
>SJ>If Darwinism followed it's rule of prefixing "apparent" before
>>"intelligence", as it does with "design", it would presumably
>>have to admit that *human* "intelligence" is only "apparent"
>>"intelligence"?
CL>The 'apparent' is all science is concerned with. But then, 'intelligence'
>--unquantified--is no more a scientific notion than 'complexity' or
>'design-with-no-apparent-designer'. If Stephen's analysis is valid,
>at least I have the consolation that my stupidity is also only apparent.
I thought I posted something on this dual meaning of "apparent" as
being "visible" and also "illusory":
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=apparent
1 : open to view : VISIBLE
2 : clear or manifest to the understanding
3 : appearing as actual to the eye or mind
4 : having an indefeasible right to succeed to a title or estate
5 : manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence
that may or may not be factually valid <the air of spontaneity is perhaps
more apparent than real -- J. R. Sutherland>
- apœparœentœness /-'par-&nt-n&s, -'per-/ noun
synonyms APPARENT, ILLUSORY, SEEMING, OSTENSIBLE mean
not actually being what appearance indicates. APPARENT suggests
appearance to unaided senses that is not or may not be borne out by more
rigorous examination or greater knowledge <the apparent cause of the
accident>. ILLUSORY implies a false impression based on deceptive
resemblance or faulty observation, or influenced by emotions that prevent a
clear view <an illusory sense of security>. SEEMING implies a character in
the thing observed that gives it the appearance, sometimes through intent,
of something else <the seeming simplicity of the story>. OSTENSIBLE
suggests a discrepancy between an openly declared or naturally implied aim
or reason and the true one <the ostensible reason for their visit>. synonym
see in addition EVIDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought I cited Dawkins quoting Paley as meaning by apparent as
meaning "visible":
"The watchmaker of my title is borrowed from a famous treatise by the
eighteenth-century theologian William Paley. His Natural Theology-or
Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the
Appearances of Nature, published in 1802, is the best-known exposition of
the 'Argument from Design', always the most influential of the arguments
for the existence of a God." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker" 1991,
p4);
but Dawkins himself using "apparent" as "illusory":
"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see
ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living
results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance
of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of
design and planning." (Dawkins R., 1991, p21).
But I can't find it in my Sent mail folder so maybe I never sent it?
CL>Critics of 'Darwinism' seem so unconcerned about the ambiguity of the
>term, I have to conclude that they think the ambiguity is something
>they should perpetuate. Is Stephen talking about natural origins in
>general, or evolution through natural selection, or gradualism, or
>macroevolution?
The answer's simple. I am not talking about *any* of those things.
My point is this, if Darwinists say that the "intelligence" evident in the
design of living things is only "apparent" (in the sense of "illusory"), then
presumably it follows that the Darwinists would have to admit that
ultimately *human* "intelligence" is only "apparent" (in the sense of
"illusory")?
I understand that Dennett actually does this, but for once I can't find
the reference! :-)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"The trouble was that in reading widely during my early teens I ran into the
Darwinian theory, for a little while with illusions and then with less respect
than adults with bated breath were wont to show. The theory seemed to me
to run like this: `If among the varieties of a species there is one that
survives better in the environment than the others, then the variety that
survives best is the one that best survives.' If I had known the word
tautology I would have called this a tautology. People with still more bated
breath, called it natural selection. I made them angry, just as I do today, by
saying that it did nothing at all. You could select potatoes as much as you
pleased but you would never make them into a rabbit. Nor by selecting oak
trees could you make them into colonies of bats, and those who thought
they could in my opinion were bats in the belfry." (Hoyle F., "Mathematics
of Evolution", [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, p2)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 24 2000 - 09:06:11 EST