[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[David M]

Micah

Does there not need to be a without for this within to be?

David M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Micah" <micah at roarkplumbing.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)


> Probably been covered, but intelligence and behavior are human
> characteristics, and an atom is not organized, it is - we perceive the
> organization. Intelligence, behavior and organization is within us, not
> without us.
>
> "Intelligent Design" begs the question - compared to what other design?
> Again, the universe "is" - the design is within us.
>
>
>
> Micah
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of David M
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 3:12 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)
>
>
> Ian/Arlo
>
> My own vision is of a non-reductive, non-deterministic
> science, ontological pluralism, that gives us a view of nature that
> recognises
> the active intelligence/behaviour that is in all life if not all forms of
> organisation (an atom is a form of organisation) but evolves into a
> higher human form, where most aspects of religion as we have know it
> have been abandoned as authoritarian attempts at social control
> but perhaps retaining some sense of the awe and sacredness
> that this cosmic achievement should perhaps inspire.
> Is that so awful and misguided?
>
> David M
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arlo Bensinger" <ajb102 at psu.edu>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)
>
>
>> [Ian]
>> I think we're mixing up "the argument from intelligent design" with
>> the drivel of IDC "creationists"
>>
>> [Arlo]
>> According to Wikipedia, "Intelligent design (ID) is an argument that
>> "certain features of the universe and of living things are best
>> explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as
>> natural selection." ... "In a leaked memo, commonly known as The
>> Wedge Document, however, the supporters of the movement were told,
>> "We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a
>> positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories,
>> which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design. Design
>> theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist
>> worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian
>> and theistic convictions."
>>
>> "Intelligent design", at its core, implies an "intelligent designER". No?
>>
>> [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?
>>
>> 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/
>>
>
>
> 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/
>
> 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/
>