Bertvan@aol.com writes
in message <bd.28460fe.262e1515@aol.com>:
>
> Ted:
> > But why not speculate? If design can infer a designer, why can't
> >the nature of the design infer the nature of the designer?
>
> Bertvan:
> Hi Ted, I wouldn't discourage anyone else from speculating about
> anything. It is just not a speculation that interests me.
> IMHO we don't yet know enough about the nature of the design to
> say much about the about nature of the designer. (Some of us
> have been too busy arguing that design couldn't possibly exist.
> :-))
Now wait, if we don't know enough about the nature of the design
to say anything about the designer, how can we even conclude
with any degree of confidence that it is design at all?
> Ted:
> > The inference that I would get from the "design" in nature is
> >that the designer has the same morals as nature itself; which
> >makes it rather simpler, again, to posit nature as the designer
> >rather than another entity for which there is no other evidence.
>
> Bertvan:
> I have no objection to suggesting "nature" as the designer
> (whatever "nature " is). However I have a hard time thinking
> of anything resulting from "random mutation and natural selection"
> as designed. I'm forced to seek more rational mechanisms.
Why, specifically, is the former conclusion irrational?
I may have a hard time thinking that a massive oak tree can result
from a tiny acorn, but that is only because I erroneously
assume that something so small can not possibly contain
the potential for something so large.
> Bertvan:
> I would consider the possibility of the "designer" being an "organism"
> extremely naive.
So the designer is something like a god? Why is that view less naive?
For analogy, it sounds like I'm proposing a "horse", and you're
proposing a "unicorn", and you call my proposal naive.
> I can't imagine what morality has to do with design. You do a
> lot of speculating and make a lot of assumptions about the
> nature of morality about which I have no opinions. Surely your
> aren't suggesting that intelligence is somehow tied to morality?
> The list of intelligent, but immoral humans is extensive.
Yes, I'm suggesting that intelligence and morality are linked.
As for immoral humans, the key point is not presence of intelligence
but lack of knowledge. Immorality is invariably linked to lack
of knowledge about consequences, lack of knowledge of the
"humanness" of those affected, and perhaps a preference for
one's "animal" impulses over rational thought (but that I would
characterize as a lack of intelligence since intelligence never
used is fairly indistinguishable from little intelligence).
An advanced intelligence that has been around long enough to
accumulate the knowledge required to do gene manipulation would
likely have advanced morality that would be violated by
the use of what is called the evolutionary process.
> And
> if you grant some degree of intelligence to other mammals, are
> you suggesting their intelligence is somehow tied to morality?
> I don't consider such speculation "out-of-bounds", just not very
> fruitful.
There is obviously a threshold of intelligence for behavior
that we associate most directly with morality that is not
achieved in most mammals.
I think you regard such speculation rationally flawed, not
fruitless, and your criticism of my speculation makes up
most of this post. :)
> Without going into the nature of morality, you state that morality is
> "maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain"? I think even the most naive
> religion defines morality as something more than that.
No, I stated that the *goal* of morality can be reduced to that.
Religious believers use that goal as well, only they believe
that pleasure and pain goes beyond death.
> Bertvan:
> Some people regard certain suffering as justifying [pleasure?].
Certainly, tradeoffs in goals are very common.
> However,
> I'm still puzzled by your obsession with morality. Is the
> following your position: Since you see morality tied to
> intelligence (which I don't), and since suffering exists, nature
> isn't moral, and therefore can't be the result of a rational
> design?
Yes, that's my position if the ID is not a Christian-like God
entity. (If the ID is a Christian-like God, my argument still
applies but is complicated by the fact that this ID can ressurect
the dead and reward and even reverse suffering. Hopefully when I
get the time for a response to Mike's posts I'll talk more about
this.)
Advanced intelligence and morality are seen only in human beings
and morality seems to require intelligence. Further, advanced
intelligence combined with knowledge leads to advanced morality.
(I understand this conflicts with a great deal of religious
assumptions but I would submit the human race as proof:
our morality today is clearly far more advanced-- more
concerned about human suffering-- than it was at any time in
the past. And this is despite the apparent "corruption and decay
of the moral fabric of society" that many conservative
religious believers go on about).
If we propose intelligence in the design of life, it is more
reasonable to propose an organism something like human beings
constrained by the laws of physics then to propose, say, Jehovah
or Zeus or some other unnamed entity with god-like powers.
> Ted:
> > Actually, in this instance, I believe it doesn't stop with
> > disappointment, it continues to an argument that demonstrates
> > that intelligence without morality is really a bit far-fetched.
> > But again, I don't agree that anyone has decreed that teleology,
> > in theory, does not exist; only that there is no evidence in
> > nature that requires an ID explanation-- just like a geologist
> > might say about the Grand Canyon.
>
> Bertvan:
> Those who see no evidence for teleology in nature will continue
> to see no need for an ID explanation. Those who do see evidence
> for teleology will probably consider ID. Is not seeing evidence
> of teleology in nature obligatory to being a scientist?
What evidence in nature can be said to obviously require an ID
explanation? How is this specifically different from the Grand
Canyon?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 19 2000 - 16:34:07 EDT