Fw: Re: Designed Designers?

From: Steven P Crawford (stevenpcrawford@juno.com)
Date: Wed Aug 02 2000 - 22:01:37 EDT

  • Next message: Steven P Crawford: "Fw: Re: Van Till's chapter"

    --------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: Steven P Crawford <stevenpcrawford@juno.com>
    To: jwyatt@earthlink.net
    Cc: stevenpcrawford@juno.com
    Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 01:08:19 -0400
    Subject: Re: Designed Designers?
    Message-ID: <20000802.010822.-150295.0.stevenpcrawford@juno.com>

    On Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:01:34 -0700 "Jack Wyatt" <jwyatt@earthlink.net>
    writes:
    ...
    > Jack>> You are correct. It's possible within ID theory to conclude
    > that evolution might not have occurred here, but it did happen at
    > least somewhere in the Universe. So what?
    > The point ID is making is that ID was required for the orign of life
    > on earth. On some other planet in the universe there may have been
    > completely different conditions wherein some kind of evolution was
    > possible. It's also possible that evolution elsewhere was
    > non-Darwinian. In other words, it involved processes other than
    > random mutations and natural selection. ID is not anti-evolution.
    > Many ID'ers believe that natural history reflects the action of both
    > intelligent design and evolution. What ID'ers object to is the
    > notion that random mutations and natural selection did all the
    > creating without any intelligent direction.<<
    ...

    I still think this is a problem for ID.

    If a natural undesigned designer is truly possible in ID, then I don't
    think you can in the end objectively identify design. Presumably this
    undesigned lifeform would have something corresponding to a brain (for it
    to be intelligent). It would have some kind of internal movement system
    for its metabolism. It would be able to receive stimuli from its
    environment, especially sense perception. It would have motive ability
    so that it can change location. It would have some kind of appendage or
    appendages so that it can manipulate external objects, especially the
    constituents of our molecular machines.

    Now, I am willing to bet that, should we ever examine such a creature,
    our conclusion would be that there is design at work within it. This
    would not only be true with its macrostructures but chances are we would
    also find some nifty biomolecular complexes. Indeed, if science tells us
    anything about organisms that can do all the above, it's that they give
    every appearance of being designed. We would find such a lifeform to be
    nothing less than extraordinary. How else would we view a creature that
    can put together such remarkable cellular processes as we see here on
    Earth?

    Yet, all of these traits would have occurred through purposeless,
    goal-less processes. This is what I mean when I say "undesigned." The
    lifeform would be the product of some event or series of natural events
    that did not plan the lifeform as the result. There was no forethought
    occurring in the lifeform's formation. The very idea of "design" seems
    to require some purpose at work in the generation of the thing designed.
    If something's "undesigned," it's existence is not dependent in any way
    upon a preconceived blueprint.

    So, then, let's accept the notion that such an extraordinary undesigned
    creature is theoretically possible within ID theory. Like I said, it's
    incredibly difficult to imagine a lifeform having its capabilities where
    it also does not show ANY indication of design at work. If it's
    theoretically possible for such a creature to act designed when it's only
    an illusion, then why is it not also possible for Earth organisms to look
    and act designed when they really aren't?

    This is my dilemma in accepting your claims. It seems like an total
    self-contradiction that ID allows a natural undesigned designer to be
    even a theoretical possibility. This is why I believe that ID must
    inevitably claim that a supernatural entity is the undesigned designer.
    Anything else betrays ID's goal of objectively identifying design in
    living organisms.

    Steve C.

    P.S. Would you allow me to post your messages to the Reflector for you?

    ________________________________________________________________
    YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
    Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
    Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
    http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 02 2000 - 22:10:24 EDT