[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[ian glendinning]

Arlo, Platt,

I think we're mixing up "the argument from intelligent design" with
the drivel of IDC "creationists"

To use terms like designed as in "the eye is designed to see" is to
imply intelligence in the design, but not some god-like transcendent
teleological (planning) intelligence. Any god-like language here is
short-hand, maybe for reasons of laziness, but maybe also for reasons
of conventional convenience.

Arlo you yourself, ascribed knowing and figuring and intending, in
your own and Johnson's language, to objects in which you would not
imply contained an intelligent mind. We all do it. You explained what
you mean by using that language, but you still used it.

The argument is that, evolved, emerged design IS intelligent. The
intelligent design IS the process of emergence, with no master plan or
master intellect required or implied.

No ?
Ian



On 1/18/07, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [Platt]
> After reading this I understood more than ever the argument from
> intelligent design. The "process" boggles the human mind. Thanks for sharing.
>
> [Arlo]
> The "argument" for "intelligent design" goes something like this.
> "Phew, this is too complicated for me. I think I'll just say 'God did
> it', and that'll make me feel better."
>
> There is interesting statement, MOQ-wise, in the quote I've provided.
> "The key here is that life does not simply reduce down to
> transcribing static passages from our genetic scripture. Cells figure
> out which passages to pay attention to by observing signals from the
> cells around them." And, "The great beauty of embryo development, the
> bit that human beings find so hard to grasp, is that its a totally
> decentralized process. Since every cell in the body carries a
> complete copy of the genome, no cell need wait for instructions from
> authority; every cell can act on its own information and the signals
> it receives from its neighbors."
>
> We look top-down and want to see "intent", but there is none. Only
> individual patterns following Quality that generates collective
> activity, more complexity and the emergence of higher level
> individuals. As Pirsig writes, "But it's as foolish to think of a
> city or a society as created by human bodies as it is to think of
> human bodies as a creation of the cells, or to think of cells as
> created by protein and DNA molecules, or to think of DNA as created
> by carbon and other inorganic atoms. If you follow that fallacy long
> enough you come out with the conclusion that individual electrons
> contain the intelligence needed to build New York City all by
> themselves. Absurd."
>
> If you need a "God" to have "planned" you, that is your own issue.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>