Hi Bertvan. I'll be glad to have a debate (or even a discussion)
with you over this question. Remember, I'm not trying to convince
you that you're wrong. I'm only interested in making sure I
completely understand your position.
>Bertvan:
>Now here is a question worth debating. Pre-designed life would seem to
imply
>determinism. I can't speak for anyone else, but that is not what I mean by
>ID.
OK. Your version of ID does not involve "pre-designed life". In
other words, your Intelligent Designer (or just Intelligence) does
not pre-determine how life will change or what form it will take.
Is that it?
>I suspect the intelligence responsible for the design in nature is an
>intrinsic part of all life.
OK. Your version of the Intelligence in ID is an intrinsic part of all
life but does not pre-determine the form or type of life. Yet it is
"responsible for the design in nature". How does this work? Does your
"life intelligence" wait for a mutation to occur and then decide, somehow,
on some criteria, whether or not to allow that mutation to continue? Or
does the "life intelligence" intervene somehow to help certain mutations
to occur? If so, why isn't that "pre-determining the form or type of life"?
If the "life intelligence" doesn't pre-determine how life will develop,
then it seems like it would have to take pot-luck. If this is going to
be distinguished from "chance and random mutation", then your "life
intelligence" is going to have to "guide" the available mutations somehow
so some are preferentially selected. On what basis does it do this if it
does not pre-determine how life develops?
>It may be arrogant of us to limit the existence
>of consciousness, free will, intelligence, choice, creativity, spontaneity,
>etc., to our own species.
You could be right.
>In regard to the recent article about how cells
>communicate with each, how can communication occur without the existence of
>some form of intelligence?
Sound waves waggle your eardrum. These undulations are converted into
electrical impulses by the middle ear. This is a purely mechanical
process, yet information is communicated. Is the ear intelligent?
It is a moderatly good device (though there are many that are better)
for collecting sound waves. Are you arguing that the ear "knows" it
has to convert the sound waves into electrical impulses? Wouldn't
this make deaf people inherently more stupid than people who can
hear? If you puncture your eardrum, have you lost some intelligence?
You may miss some information, but have you lowered your "body's" IQ?
>If science can not deal with these qualities, I'm
>content to leave life unexplained. I'm still not willing to settle for
>"chance and selection" as an explanation.
Yet, you do want to argue for an Intelligence that "is an intrinsic part of
all life" and "is responsible for the design in nature" so maybe you are not
completely wedded to being "content to leave life unexplained". Most of
us are at least mildly curious about it. I look forward to your comments.
ralph
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Nov 19 2000 - 00:24:58 EST