In a message dated 10/1/2000 8:14:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time, DNAunion
writes:
> >DNAunion: It appears to me that you agree that intelligence is not
> confined
> to a brain, and further, that intelligence is not confined to life as we
> know
> it. Is this true?
>
> >FMA: The "actualization-exclusion-specification" triad mentioned above
> also fits natural selection rather precisely. One might thus conclude that
> Dembski's argument establishes that natural selection can be recognized as
> an intelligent agent. "
>
> http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/zgists/wre/papers/dembski7.html
>
> It's important to define intelligence since otherwise the use of
> "Intelligent Design" can lead to a lot of confusion.
>
> >DNAunion: Okay, so will you answer my original questions.
> (1) Is intelligence confined to brains?
> (2) Is intelligence confined to life as we know it?
That's a hard question. It depends on the definition of intelligence. Can
natural forces appear to be "intelligent"? Can intelligence exist outside
life as we know it? That's why I am asking for a definition of the term
intelligence since it seems that the way it is used by the ID movement, it
does not exclude natural forces as the intelligent designer. Would I call
natural selection "intelligent"? I doubt it. But if it follows logically from
the definition such as shown by Wesley then either intelligence is used
incorrectly or intelligence is far more inclusive than I would have made it.
However for us to understand the meaning of ID we need to address these
definitions and issues. Or better even, ID'ers should deal with these isssues.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 23:18:06 EDT