At 06:16 PM 05/19/2000 -0400, Bertvan@aol.com wrote:
>Bertvan
> >> My version of ID is that life is designed by the intelligence contained
> >>within life itself.
>
>Steve C:
> >What in the world does this mean? Perhaps you should tell us what you mean
> >by "intelligence".
>
>Hi Steve C:
>First, do you characterize yourself as a materialist? I don't mean anything
>derogatory by the term; just a philosophy very different from mine.
Interesting. People on this reflector seem to divide the world into
materialists and nonmaterialists. Kind of a black and white view of
things, I think.
I explained in an earlier exchange that I am a complementarian. I believe
that the world was designed and created by an intelligent being. Yet, I
also believe that reality (as you put it) cannot be fully understood by
science. Science can inform us about the physical world and its workings,
but doesn't inform us about things it is not equipped to deal with. These
are things like purpose and ID and the physiology of angels. These aspects
of reality are best understood using other ways of knowing, not by
science. Decartes talked about internal and external ways of knowing, and
I think that this division of knowledge of reality is useful.
I think that people who claim that science disproves God and purpose are
guilty of making claims that are not warranted. If evolution, for
instance, has a random component to it, they cannot legitimately claim that
this removes all need for God in understanding reality. They would be more
accurate to say that the appearance of randomness is consistent with an
idea that God does not exist. But the appearance of randomness is fully
compatible with the notion that God does exist and uses the randomness to
His advantage. There is no way that science can tell us which of these two
notions is correct.
In other words, it is inappropriate to say that science proves a certain
metaphysical world viewpoint. It does not because it does not address
questions of metaphysics. As I have said before, we need to keep our
physics and metaphysics better separated. This is the complementarian view.
>Coming up with a definition of "intelligence" with which everyone agrees
>could be as difficult as articulating a philosophy that satisfies everyone.
For our purposes here, it is not necessary to come up with a definition
that satisfies everyone. In a debate over ideas, we attempt to put our
ideas and concepts into words. When we use words in ways that are not
generally understood, it is important to explain how we are using
them. Thus, your claim above that intelligence is contained within life
itself is a nonconventional statement that needs explaining. That's all.
>However it might be stimulating to compare thoughts on such an effort. I
>might tentatively define intelligence as the ability to make choices based
>upon information. I realize that many materialists don't believe choice
>exists, even for humans. If such is your position, we'd have to agree to
>disagree at this point. However, if you accept the concept of choice, humans
>obviously have more power to choose than other organisms. If we grant any
>degree of ability to override instincts and other natural constraints to
>humans, how could we know where to stop? Chimps? Cats and dogs? Reptiles?
>Probably some people would insist that a mind, or intelligence, could not
>exist in the absence of a physical brain, but I doubt that could be proved.
> I've even heard that some plants have some ability to "choose " the
>fertilization they accept. One-celled organisms pursue, devour and escape
>from each other, and give the appearance of choice. We can't even state for
>certain that DNA, if alive, doesn't have some small power of choice.
I believe that humans have free will and are able to choose. As for the
rest of what you write, I thinkg that you are confusing the existence
of alternative responses with choice. I'll illustrate with a simple
example; cells can either divide or die. The "decision" here can either be
stochastic (random) or instructive (affected by the environment)--e.g.,
certain hormones can remove the random "decision" and induce either death
or growth. I wouldn't call this intelligence even though cells have the
ability to respond to the environment. This response is quite passive and
I think that a component of choice would be that it is an active process.
If you want to call this intelligence, that is fine. However, I don't see
how this concept of intelligence would have any effect on the way science
is done. Basically, you and the "materialists" who do not view this as
choice or intelligence would still do the same experiments and have the
same interpretation of them.
Would you consider Dawkins' and Doolittle's concept of the selfish gene as
an example of the sort of intelligence you refer to?
>If you have another definition of intelligence, I wouldn't wish to impose my
>definition (or philosophy) upon anyone. Too many people seem convinced that
>if consensus could be achieved, if everyone thought like them, the world
>would be a lovely place. Wrong! It would mean stagnation, and the end of
>all growth or development. The beauty of the design of the universe is the
>presence of diversity and conflict, the existence of evil as well as beauty,
>the ability to grow. I think Cliff's analogy to the economy is apt.
>Nature's growth is the accumulation of many tiny actions of the individual
>pieces of nature, and if those pieces are alive, any change came about, IMHO,
>by individual choices, not randomly. (As the Darwinists point out, the
>changes were so tiny and gradual that no one could prove either chance or
>choice.) Some people fear the choices humans are making might destroy the
>earth, and growth was more sustainable when the limited choices available to
>the rest of nature were all that existed. Myself, I suspect we are part of
>the design.
>
>Bertvan
>http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 22 2000 - 15:40:30 EDT