[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[ian glendinning]

Case,

You make my point in this reply,
then spoil it with one slip ... inserted [IG]

On 1/18/07, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
> [Ian]
> I think we're mixing up "the argument from intelligent design" with
> the drivel of IDC "creationists"
>
> [Arlo]
> "Intelligent design", at its core, implies an "intelligent designER". No?
>
> [Case]
> Ah, the problems a using language! I see problems with the implications of
> both terms intelligent implies conscious planning and design likewise
> implies a designer. The process itself requires neither. There is also the
> problem of metaphor involved in most any description we use of the process.
>
> Johnson's exposition is filled with anthropomorphic metaphors that make his
> meanings clear when understood as such. When taken literally they become
> gibberish. Understanding what he says requires the ability to translate his
> metaphorical language.
>
> [Ian]
> 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.
>
> [Arlo]
> I'm not sure I understand this. Can you expand a bit?
>
> [Case]
> I too have a problem with that one. In a sense the term "intelligent design"
> is redundant and either term leads to confusion.

[IG] But Case, you explained this perfectly already when you said
"Johnson's exposition is filled with anthropomorphic metaphors that
make his meanings clear when understood as such. When taken literally
they become gibberish. Understanding what he says requires the ability
to translate his metaphorical language."

I couldn't have said it better. It's about explanation and
understanding, not literal meaning. If we choose to misunderstand, all
language can be made to look like gibberish. Even mine ;-)
Ian