Ralph:
>No. Notice my use of the word "invariably". Now that you are including
>the words "more likely", I can agree with you. Intelligence is more likely
>to produce rational, complex organisms than chance, but there are
>several unspoken assumptions here. The first, of course, is that an
>intelligence is available. But even if an intelligence is available, you
have
>to assume that it has a *goal* to produce a rational, complex organism.
>Then you have to assume that it has *sufficient* intelligence to accomplish
>its goal. Mr. Norman has already agreed that this would take at least a
>human level of intelligence. Does this picture remind you of anything?
>I thought you were agnostic?
Bertvan
An accumulation of marginally intelligent, individual choices, with limited
goals, can design a culture, an economy or an biosphere, with no natural
selection involved. Apparently there is no need for anything even approaching
human intelligence for a complex system to be built up piece by piece. It
seems a more likely possibility than chance. (I am not sure what you are
suggesting about religion. I am an agnostic, not an atheist.)
>Bertvan:
>>I'm merely suggesting symbiosis is not a chance event. Motivation is
>>involved.
Ralph:
>"Intelligent" motivation, I presume you mean? I was merely pointing out
>that symbiosis is not always the rosy picture you seemed to be painting.
Bertvan:
Intelligence only needs to be great enough to pursue some limited goal.
Ralph:
>You seemed to be suggesting that it took intelligence for the DNA to follow
>its code. I was saying that if you scramble that code, even so badly that
>the organism is no longer viable, the DNA still follows the code. If this is
>intelligence, it must be *blind* intelligence, without any motivation to
>produce a rational, complex organism, as we were discussing above.
Bertvan:
It can be defined as intelligence and still not be capable of unscrambling
itself.
>Bertvan:
>>The Darwinists are the ones who claim to know for certain that intelligence/
>>mind/motivation/free will/Teleology play no important part in natures
>>processes. As a result they have ended up with a theory that most people
>>don't find credible, but no one can think of an alternative. Nevertheless,
>>for some reason they feel compelled to impose this theory upon society as
>>"fact".
Ralph:
>You just seem to be demanding different criteria from science than
>you use for yourself. You demand that science say with "certainty"
>that no intelligence is required, yet you believe intelligence *is*
>present, even though no one, AFAIK, has proved that with "certainty".
Bertvan:
I don't take to the courts to try to ensure that my ideas be taught in
schools to the exclusion of all other thoughts on the subject. I wouldn't
try to discourage anyone, including YECs and materialists, from expressing
their views. I regard diversity of opinion as healthy.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 10:38:51 EDT