DNAunion: In reply to Chris Cogan's post "Re: WHY DOES THE UNIVERSE WORK?",
posted 10/16/2000.
[...]
>>>Chris: He's apparently arguing from the obvious fact that we *can*
intervene
biologically to "design" life to the conclusion that life *is* designed.
DNAunion: No. I am arguing as follows: it is an "obvious fact that we *can*
interevene biologically to "design" life", therefore, "life *COULD HAVE BEEN*
designed". I am offering design as an alternative, not as a fact. In
addition: it is an "obvious fact that *WE* can intervene biologically to
"design" life", therefore, any extraterrestrial civilization that, several
billion years ago, was a little more advanced than we are today could have
designed life as we know it.
>>Chris: This is an obvious non-sequitur.
DNAunion: Why not re-examine what I am saying.
>>Chris: However, he could argue from this fact to the conclusion that it is
theoretically *possible* that life on Earth is designed. But, I think most of
us *already* agree that it is *possible* to design life.
DNAunion: Yes, and we will be able to create life de novo by intelligent
manipulations far eariler than by purely-natural means (that is, IF we ever
achieve the second). Thus, intelligent interevention could be viewed as a
better explanation for the appearance of life on Earth about 4 GYa.
>>Chris: The question is not, *Could* life on Earth have been designed? but
rather,
*Is* (or *was*) life on Earth designed?
DNAunion: At the best, I believe the same could be said for purely-natural
abiogenesis here on Earth. It could be argued that life's arising on Earth
is *possible*, but did it really happen? I, of course, have problems with
the first assumption: that is, I do not believe that it is probable at all
that life as complex as the "simplest" bacterium could have arisen on Earth,
under the conditions believed to have been present, in the amount of time
available.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 21 2000 - 02:35:37 EDT