|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 13. April 2007 19:01
Hi Nick,
quote:
It's clear that, nothing that could ever be said would satisfy your desire for a justification for the use of the word "Intelligent" by proponents of Intelligent Design Theory. I don't know why you don't just come right out and say so.
I have. However, I asked the questions in the OP in good faith, in case I was wrong.
quote:
But, no, you will continue to make silly analogous comparisons and present superfluous arguments, against a concept that the rest of the average people in the world considers an axiomatic postulate, as long as someone will indulge you.
Axiomatic postulates by average people do not constitute scientific claims, Nick.
quote:
The recognition of something is not predicate to a clear definition, characterization or understanding of it. Prior to Newton, everyone knew that gravity existed. Even goat herders understood the fact that objects fall toward the surface of the earth, long before Newton’s time.
No, they did not understand that "gravity" existed; they understood that unsupported things fell to Earth. They had no idea that the same thing that caused apples to fall to Earth caused the motions of the planets they saw in the sky.
quote:
Q: What enabled the apple to fall from the tree?
A: Gravity.
Q: Why do we believe that gravity caused the apple to fall?
A: Because that is what we call that which causes things to fall to the ground!
AIguy: Well, that's the most vacuous explanation I've ever heard.
And yes, this explanation is perfectly vacuous of course.
quote:
Galileo Galilei, without the help of Newton, was able to demonstrate that all objects fall to the surface of the earth with the same acceleration, and that this acceleration was independent of the mass of the falling object. His lack of Newtonian understanding didn't make his observations any less accurate.
You are quite right, and his observations helped to enable others to formulate a characterization of gravity with actual meaning. (Newton made this point explicitly, when he said he "stood on the shoulders of giants" to come up with his theory).
quote:
Even with all the works of Newton and Einstein at your disposal, you do not understand, nor can you explain the actual mechanisms of gravitational force, but that does not, a priori, rule out it's existence or our ability to recognize it when we see or feel it's effects.
We only know that apples falling to the ground and planets orbiting the Sun are caused by the same thing because we now have a sufficiently detailed characterization of this cause that we can make predictions about both phenomena and demonstrate that the same characterization accounts for what we see in both cases.
The question of the OP is this: What characterization of intelligence can we use to determine that the same thing that enables humans to design watches is the cause of biological complexity.
This question remains unanswered.
[ 13. April 2007, 19:35: Message edited by: aiguy ]
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 13. April 2007 19:19
Mel,
quote:
I can’t demonstrate that my shoe has access to data. Whether it does or not is not the issue. I can’t demonstrate that it does, therefore I can’t demonstrate that it is intelligent.
But of course it does. It has access to the pressure against the ground, to the sweat soaking through your socks, and all sorts of other data. Why wouldn't it?
quote:
I have access to data about my shoe. It is giving off an odor. I sensed the district combination of chemicals in the air and identified that event with the shoe. Therefore, I have demonstrated my access to data. I am not concerned (scientifically) about things for which no access is demonstrable.
Yes, you have access to that data also. You also happen to be able to talk about it, an ability that shoes apparently lack. But both have access to data.
quote:
Perhaps we here at brainstorms will do better than philosophers of the past.
Unless you familiarize yourself with what others have said before you, this is highly unlikely... and it's pretty unlikely even if you do. Very smart people have been at it for thousands of years, with no luck so far. But hey - who am I to say that you won't be the one to succeed? Go for it.
quote:
You requested a positive characterization of intelligence.
Yes, positive meaning "not a negative characterization", rather than "absolutely certain".
quote:
We may not be able to demonstrate that an agent can interpret data. But, would you agree that such a demonstration is necessary in order to show intelligence? Is there an agent commonly referred to as intelligent that does not at least appear to interpret data?
I don't know of anything that does not interpret data. A rock interprets the data coming from wind and rain and erodes in response to it. Perhaps you need to work on your definitions of "data" and "interpretation" to exclude examples like these. You'll know you've succeeded when you have a criterion that includes all the things you want to call intelligent, and excludes all the things you don't want to call intelligent, and the criterion is objective, such that any two reasonable independent researchers will be compelled to agree in every case.
quote:
Again, if we can demonstrate that the earth’s action was in response to interpreted data then the earth would qualify in item (3).
It seems to me that this is already demonstrably true - the Earth responds to data regarding tectonic stress. How could we settle the matter?
quote:
I understand that my four items present difficulties but is there anything constructive that can be said for them or are they a total wash?
Like I said, Mel, people have been struggling with these questions since before Plato, and most people think the only progress that has been made has been that the questions are more clear - but nobody has any answers.
Nobody has ever figured out a way to demonstrate what things have minds and what things do not (called the problem of other minds). We have some ways to finesse the problem when we're talking about things very much like other humans beings. In the context of ID, however, we are supposed to be able to decide the existence of a mind when we have no access at all to the "entity" (process?) in question, and which is obviously very much different from a human being.
I really think you'd benefit from perusing a few discussions about these problems before you move on with your attempt to solve them.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 13. April 2007 22:11
aiguy,
Can you demonstrate that my shoe has access to the data we both agree exists [pressure, moisture, etc.]? The only way that I know of for an agent to have access to data is for that agent to possess some sort of sensory [input] device. Proximity alone does not give access to data. My writing about the data is one demonstration of my access. What demonstrates the access you suppose the shoe has?
You wrote:
quote:
Yes, positive meaning "not a negative characterization", rather than "absolutely certain".
That is exactly what I am trying to do. I am trying to establish what abilities DO indicate intelligence. That is positive and not negative.
You wrote:
quote:
I don't know of anything that does not interpret data. A rock interprets the data coming from wind and rain and erodes in response to it.
You suppose the rock interprets data while I suppose it does not. But, can you demonstrate that the rock interprets data? I don’t need to demonstrate that it does not. Remember, we are trying to characterize intelligence positively [by demonstrating things that are occurring] not negatively [by demonstrating things that are not occurring].
I will work on my definition of “interpretation” if you will work on your definition of “reasonable researchers”.
How have you demonstrated that the earth has ever responded to interpreted data? We have not even settled what demonstrates an interpretation. You are getting ahead of yourself.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 14. April 2007 01:15
Mel,
quote:
Can you demonstrate that my shoe has access to the data we both agree exists [pressure, moisture, etc.]? The only way that I know of for an agent to have access to data is for that agent to possess some sort of sensory [input] device. Proximity alone does not give access to data. My writing about the data is one demonstration of my access. What demonstrates the access you suppose the shoe has?
Ok, I thought that "A has access to B" meant "some causal influence of B impinged upon A". This would be in keeping with concepts in cybernetics, where an input to A from B means that some change is caused in A by B.
Apparently you mean something else, and require that a "sensory device" be present. Can you tell me what that might be? Do you think that the intelligence purported by ID to be responsible for the creation of life had a "sensory device"?
quote:
You suppose the rock interprets data while I suppose it does not. But, can you demonstrate that the rock interprets data? I don’t need to demonstrate that it does not.
I said I didn't know of anything that does not interpret data; you claim that some things do and some things do not. I believe it is encumbent upon you to suggest how we might make this determination, since I know of no way to do it.
quote:
Remember, we are trying to characterize intelligence positively [by demonstrating things that are occurring] not negatively [by demonstrating things that are not occurring].
I know of no way to demonstrate that something is or is not "interpreting" data. If you think you can, you have to tell us how.
quote:
I will work on my definition of “interpretation” if you will work on your definition of “reasonable researchers”.
I do not have a definition of "reasonable". I do not attempt to use this term as a scientific explanation, however. My point was not a scientific point, but a meta-scientific point: Science is a human endeavor, and in order for science to proceed, people must act in good faith and share basic agreement on what we can experience with our senses. If people are not reasonable, nobody can agree on anything. Fortunately, the history of science shows that people all over the world are in fact reasonable, and science progresses quite well.
quote:
How have you demonstrated that the earth has ever responded to interpreted data? We have not even settled what demonstrates an interpretation. You are getting ahead of yourself.
I don't think I'm ahead of myself here at all: As far as I know, everything interprets data. You are the one making an additional claim, viz. some things interpret data and some things don't. Apparently you believe that a "sensory device" is requisite. All you need to do now is tell us how we can identify a sensory device when we see one. Then we can say that anything with a sensory device is a candidate intelligent agent, and anything that does not have a sensory device cannot be intelligent. At that point, if you can show that the Intelligent Designer of ID theory had (has?) a sensory device, you will be on your way to giving some scientific meaning to ID's claims.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 14. April 2007 14:53
aiguy and 2ndclass:
I found this definition of design on the web:
"An iterative decision-making process that produces plans by which resources are converted into products or systems that meet human needs and wants or solve problems"
I'd modify it by eliminating the word "human":
"An iterative decision-making process that produces plans by which resources are converted into products or systems that meet needs and wants or solve problems"
Of course now I suppose you'll want definitions of the terms "iterative", "decision-making", "process", "produces", "plans", "resources", "converted", "products", "systems", "needs", "wants", "solve" and "problems" - won't you?
[ 14. April 2007, 14:54: Message edited by: Daniel Smith ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 14. April 2007 16:09
aiguy:
quote:
Sorry, these questions belong in another thread. Let's see if we can keep this one on track.
I am on track. You say that "Intelligent Design" cannot be offered as an explanation for biological complexity because the term "Intelligence" is undefined.
I am merely asking you; what are the the alternatives? And how well defined are they?
If there are no well defined alternatives, then "Intelligent Design" is just as legitimate as any other explanation.
Either all explanations must be precluded until they are well defined, or any plausible explanation (in spite of it's undefined terms) must be allowed.
So which is it?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 14. April 2007 16:42
Quote: It's clear that, nothing that could ever be said would satisfy your desire for a justification for the use of the word "Intelligent" by proponents of Intelligent Design Theory. I don't know why you don't just come right out and say so. But, no, you will continue to make silly analogous comparisons and present superfluous arguments, against a concept that the rest of the average people in the world considers an axiomatic postulate, as long as someone will indulge you.
It is equally as clear that when presented with a mathematically and scientifically rigorous definition of intelligence that leads to hard science predictive theories, aiguy is unable and unwilling to address it.
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 15. April 2007 00:22
Hi Daniel,
quote:
"An iterative decision-making process that produces plans by which resources are converted into products or systems that meet needs and wants or solve problems"
I'm a bit surprised you'd want to go with "iterative" here. If, for example, the Intelligent Designer turned out to be an omniscient God, one would not expect Him to need to iterate in order to figure out a problem...
In any case, now you need to show the process/entity/thing/whatever that is hypothesized by ID to have created life exhibits these particular attributes. What evidence can we muster that this process:
1) Was iterative?
2) Produced plans?
3) Had needs and wants?
quote:
I am on track. You say that "Intelligent Design" cannot be offered as an explanation for biological complexity because the term "Intelligence" is undefined.
No, that's not really my position. Rather, I've pointed out that "intelligence" has a multitude of definitions, and that none of these definitions seem to support the claim that the same thing which enables human beings to design things was also responsible for creating biological complexity.
quote:
I am merely asking you; what are the the alternatives? And how well defined are they? If there are no well defined alternatives, then "Intelligent Design" is just as legitimate as any other explanation.
I've actually encountered this argument a number of times, and I'm always surprised by it. Of course this is absurd: If we have no explanation of biological complexity, then we simply have no answer at all. In science, we do not justify our theories by saying "Well, it's no worse than your stupid theory!".
quote:
Either all explanations must be precluded until they are well defined, or any plausible explanation (in spite of it's undefined terms) must be allowed.
Darwinian evolution is perfectly well defined; there is no particular controversy about what it is that evolutionary theory claims. The concept of mutations that are random with regard to fitness is clear, as is the concept of heritability and differential reproduction. Everybody knows what these things are; the disagreement is over whether or not they actually explain biological complexity. Whether this is true or false (and I tend to doubt it), there is a fact of the matter.
In contrast, the claim of ID theory that the cause of biological complexity is the same thing as that which enables human beings to think cannot even be evaluated at all until we have some characterization of what this thing (called "intelligent causation") is supposed to be.
[ 15. April 2007, 01:58: Message edited by: aiguy ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 15. April 2007 10:45
A big part of the confusion surrounding “How science defines intelligent causation?” arises from a lack of understanding of “What is the role intelligent causation plays in formal scientific analysis?” The hard science or real science concept of intelligent causation has very little in common with the creationist use of intelligent causation, it has very little in common with the Dembski type uses of intelligent causation and it has essentially nothing to do with the academic AI concept of intelligent causation.
In hard science or real science, intelligent causation is associated, as I have defined it, with the transformation or non-transformation of the output of information processing R from a NGC form to a GC form. In other words, in real science, intelligent causation is associated with the transformation from non-solution of a problem to the solution of a problem.
The real science analysis of intelligent causation starts with the scientist developing a model of input-output relationship where the output R0 is NGC. The scientists identifies and defines the relevant inputs –S0, the relevant processing algorithm F0, the relevant environmental conditions E0 and the criteria that makes R0 NCG.
The scientist then attempts to formulate a testable predictive teleological theory of the general form “Within defined constraints, under conditions E1, F1(G,S1)=R1 where R1 is CG” or “Within defined constraints, E0 with F0(G,S0)=R0 NGC transforms to E1 with F1(G, S1)=R1 where R1 is GC”.
In hard science analysis, the goal or objective of the scientist is to find some appropriate combinations of changes in E, S, F or G to transform R from NGC to GC. In order to deal with serious limitations or flaws in human capacity to evaluate potential solutions, the scientist or the hard science analysts uses formal testable theories gradually refined as the result of falsify and replace testing as a search process.
Intelligent causation, in real science, is defined as the rapid or efficient transformation from NGC to GC or the rapid or efficient finding of solutions to problems. Scientific analysis may focus on understanding or simulating how those transformations occur in nature in the absence of human intervention or scientific analysis may focus on how humans can intervene to produce efficient transformations from NCG to GC.
Quote: In contrast, the claim of ID theory that the cause of biological complexity is the same thing as that which enables human beings to think cannot even be evaluated at all until we have some characterization of what this thing (called "intelligent causation") is supposed to be.
This, as most people recognize intuitively is scientific nonsense. Science does not address some unobservable processes that may be going on inside the human mind. Science addresses the externally observable phenomena and testable relationships between observable phenomena. It does not particularly matter if human thinking is due to some unobservable process. What matters is that observable behaviors associated with human problem solving are compatible with the observable behaviors associated with creating biological complexity.
The logical similarities between the efficient transformations associated with human problem solving and evolutionary problem solving are well defined and demonstrated. If there is some demonstrable difference between the behaviors produced by human intelligent and behaviors produced by non-human biological intelligence, then it becomes the responsibility of those supporting such a difference to define and demonstrate the difference. The reality is that aiguy and his ilk can not demonstrate such a difference so they would like to politically manipulate the situation to require that ID proponents prove the absence of such a difference. That is not the way scientific methodology works, and aiguy should be fully aware that he is attempting to impose an unrealistic and inappropriate requirement on ID science.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 15. April 2007 15:03
quote:
aiguy: In contrast, the claim of ID theory that the cause of biological complexity is the same thing as that which enables human beings to think cannot even be evaluated at all until we have some characterization of what this thing (called "intelligent causation") is supposed to be.
quote:
LifeEngineer: Science does not address some unobservable processes that may be going on inside the human mind. Science addresses the externally observable phenomena and testable relationships between observable phenomena.
I agree with LE's assessment of the limitations of science in this regard. So let me pose a variation of the question I posed before:
If we found structures on Mars with what appeared to be electrical and hydraulic systems inside, how would we go about determining whether or not these structures were intelligently designed?
What tests could we do?
By aiguy's standards, we could not make that determination - since there is no way to define intelligent design on Earth and amongst humans.
I tend to think this is absurd, and I think we'd have no problem at all making that determination, but I'm curious as to what aiguy thinks.
IMO, all it would take to make a universally acceptable determination that such structures were intelligently designed would be an elimination of any reasonable natural causes and a cursory comparison to human designs.
If we determined that the structures could not be caused by volcanic eruptions, wind, erosion, etc., and noticed that they shared many similarities with human structures, (walls, windows, doors, electrical and plumbing systems, etc.), we could safely declare them "intelligent designs" and that determination would most likely be accepted universally without question.
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 15. April 2007 16:15
Daniel,
quote:
AIGUY: In contrast, the claim of ID theory that the cause of biological complexity is the same thing as that which enables human beings to think cannot even be evaluated at all until we have some characterization of what this thing (called "intelligent causation") is supposed to be.
LE: Science does not address some unobservable processes that may be going on inside the human mind. Science addresses the externally observable phenomena and testable relationships between observable phenomena.
DANIEL: I agree with LE's assessment of the limitations of science in this regard.
First, science does of course address all sorts of unobservable processes that go on in the human mind; this science is called "psychology". Skinner and Watson attempted to remove all references to mental processes by introducing behaviorism into psychology in the 1950's, but behaviorism was incapable of explaining much of anything that humans did, and Skinnerian behaviorism has now been abandoned (except for, apparently, LE, who claims to be able to explain how humans think, but I can't make heads or tails out of what he's saying, nor will he respond to my questions).
quote:
So let me pose a variation of the question I posed before: If we found structures on Mars with what appeared to be electrical and hydraulic systems inside, how would we go about determining whether or not these structures were intelligently designed? What tests could we do?
By aiguy's standards, we could not make that determination - since there is no way to define intelligent design on Earth and amongst humans.
I tend to think this is absurd, and I think we'd have no problem at all making that determination, but I'm curious as to what aiguy thinks.
Let me try to make that perfectly clear: We can, and do, make determinations regarding what artifacts result from the activity of human beings. When we find something that is similar to what we know human beings do, we rightfully suppose that human beings were responsible.
ID replaces "human beings" with the term "intelligent agents", pretending that there is a whole class of things that do things like design electrical systems. But of course there is no such class of things at all - there are only human beings.
So, ID would like to establish a class of things called "intelligent agents", and claim that humans are one instance of this class, and another, different instance of this class is responsible for creating life. The obvious question, then, is what distinguishes intelligent agents from everything else in the universe. Unless ID can answer this question, it simply means nothing at all to say an "intelligent agent" created life. All it means is that whatever created life could create life, which tells us nothing at all.
The only other candidates for the class of "intelligent agents" are other animals, but as we've seen, we have no objective way to distinguish which animals are intelligent agents and which are not. If we can't even decide which animals are intelligent - and we can observe and experiment with other animals - how are we to determine if the cause of life was an (unobservable, inaccessible) intelligent agent?
quote:
IMO, all it would take to make a universally acceptable determination that such structures were intelligently designed would be an elimination of any reasonable natural causes and a cursory comparison to human designs.
What you are saying is that if we have no explanation of something, and it seems like something a human might do, then we should say a human being did it... unless of course a human being could not have done it (as is the case for the creation of life), in which case we should say that something like a human being did it. But of course you are unable to say in what respect this thing is like a human being, except for its ability to do what it is supposed to have done!
Let's look at a familiar example of why this sort of argument isn't acceptable in science. Only a few hundred years ago, people were mystified by the fact that lightning tended to hit church steeples. How could lightning come down from the clouds and find the steeple, unless some intelligent agent was looking for the steeple, and aimed the lightning bolt at it? There was no explanation of how this could happen in terms of "natural processes", and clearly aiming something at a target required human-like intelligence and the ability to see. And so, everybody concluded that an intelligent agent was responsible. (God, or Zeus or Thor or... was thought to be really angry at these particular churches, and special hymns were written to appease Them).
I presume you accept that there really are natural processes that account for the fact that lightning tends to hit church steeples, and these processes turned out to have nothing at all to do with human-like mentality.
quote:
If we determined that the structures could not be caused by volcanic eruptions, wind, erosion, etc., and noticed that they shared many similarities with human structures, (walls, windows, doors, electrical and plumbing systems, etc.), we could safely declare them "intelligent designs" and that determination would most likely be accepted universally without question.
If we found something with windows and doors and plumbing, we would reasonably conclude that something very much like a human being built these things. But if we find other things, like lightning bolts that appear as though they are being mindfully aimed, or flagella that appear to be mindfully constructed, we are not justified in saying something like a human being caused these things.
Again, the salient point here is this: If you'd like to offer something like a human being as an explanation for some observed phenomenon, you need to say in what way is this thing similar? If all you can come up with is "it is capable of doing what we observe", then you have said nothing at all. If, on the other hand, you start trying to say that it must have been conscious, or aware, or had free will, or had a "sensory device", or any other particular thing, then you simply have to say how we can determine if this is actually true, or if it is merely the sort of anthropomorphic projection that humans have made toward nature since history began (and have turned out to be wrong, time and time again).
[ 15. April 2007, 16:28: Message edited by: aiguy ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 15. April 2007 19:46
Quote: So, ID would like to establish a class of things called "intelligent agents", and claim that humans are one instance of this class, and another, different instance of this class is responsible for creating life.
Aiguy provide his interpretation of ID, but the interpretation certainly is not appropriate for all forms of ID.
To better understand the concept involved, it is useful to distinguish among 1) intelligent purposeful results, 2) intelligent purpuseful processes, 3) intelligent purposeful agency or causation and 4) intelligent purposeful agents.
The starting point for most ID is the first category- intelligent purposeful results. Watches and airplanes and birds, this intuitive argument proposes are obvious examples of intelligent purposeful results. Despite the counterclaims by opponents of ID, there seem to be lots of objective criteria that show airplanes and birds both qualify as complex purposeful phenomena designed by intelligence.
But there are limitations to the reliablity of various definitions of intelligent purposeful results, and ultimately, while the approach has numerous practical applications, is not by itself a scientifically useful criteria.
The intelligent agent criteria that aiguy would like to impose on ID is the approach favored by many advocates of religious or metaphysical forms of ID, but it does not appear to be a scientifically rigorous approach.
For scientifically rigorous definitions and concepts of purposeful intelligent causation, you need to look at purposeful intelligent processes and/or purposeful intelligent agency or causation. The only real drawback with such approaches is that they depend on a detailed working knowledge of mathematical modeling.
But the point of this post is to simply point out that the 'intelligent purposeful agent' concept that aiguy appears to be attempting to impose on ID is only one of at least four approaches to addressing intelligent purposeful causation. The intelligent agent approach would appear to be the least useful and least acceptable to scientific analysis.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 16. April 2007 02:18
aiguy,
You beat all around the bush while never actually answering my question.
All you're doing is dressing up the old anti-ID line: "We can't determine design unless we know who the designer is".
Whenever that line is used, I ask some variant of the "design on Mars" question. It never fails to produce the same results - vagaries and diversions. I've yet to receive a straight answer.
This actually cuts to the heart of the matter though; How could we determine design if an artifact is known not to be of human origin?
quote:
In contrast, the claim of ID theory that the cause of biological complexity is the same thing as that which enables human beings to think cannot even be evaluated at all until we have some characterization of what this thing (called "intelligent causation") is supposed to be.
Interesting that you equate "that which enables human beings to think" to "intelligent causation".
We may not know (exactly) what this thing called "intelligent causation" IS, but we know (and can observe) what it DOES.
Human artifacts show us what "intelligent causation" does. Human artifacts are the product of "that which enables human beings to think".
We can (and do) compare human artifacts with biological complexity and find they share many of the same properties (I mentioned a few in a previous post about the machines I work on every day).
Therefore it follows that "the same thing" that enables human beings to think could be behind the "designs" of biology.
[ 16. April 2007, 02:19: Message edited by: Daniel Smith ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 16. April 2007 02:30
quote:
What you are saying is that if we have no explanation of something...
It's not just a matter on not being able to explain things either, it's beyond that. You brush these questions off as if a natural explanation is just a tweak or two away, when you and I both know that no natural explanation for biological complexity is in sight. There's nothing even on the horizon. If there is an answer, it certainly does not involve random searches or chance.
quote:
Let's look at a familiar example of why this sort of argument isn't acceptable in science...
I presume you accept that there really are natural processes that account for the fact that lightning tends to hit church steeples, and these processes turned out to have nothing at all to do with human-like mentality.
This is really an absurd argument that has no analogous merit whatsoever in reference to biological complexity. To equate a lightning strike in any way to something like protein synthesis is patently ridiculous and only shows to what great lengths you will go to avoid the issue.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 16. April 2007 05:49
Daniel Smith
You are doing fine. I hope my endorsement will not be used against you!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 16. April 2007, 06:42: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
