Re: Design

From: Dace (
Date: Tue Aug 21 2001 - 19:23:56 BST

  • Next message: Dace: "Time"

    Received: by id TAA24392 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 19:25:48 +0100
    Message-ID: <003f01c12a6e$77a425e0$eb25f4d8@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    References: <3B8073E4.12915.A22CA2@localhost>
    Subject: Re: Design
    Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 11:23:56 -0700
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
    Precedence: bulk

    > > From: <>
    > >
    > > > > > Elegant explanations are not always
    > > > > > correct; otherwise we would embrace the elegant yet Occam-
    > > > > > violating explanation of a Master Designer intentionally
    > > > > > sticking those clumsy thumbs on pandas.
    > > > >
    > > > > To reject the Blind Designer is not necessarily to accept the
    > > > > Master Designer. I reject all concepts of an independent design,
    > > > > whether theological or chromosomal.
    > > > >
    > > > Chromosomes are not independent of the life forms in which they are
    > > > found, but part of them, and found in every cell of every existent
    > > > plant and animal.
    > >
    > > If they contain a design of the body, then there's a separation
    > > between the design and its execution. This anthropormphizes life, as
    > > if it works the same way human technicians operate.
    > >
    > I see you did not take my advice to read Von Neumann's work on
    > self-reproducing automata, or you would not make such a bogus
    > claim. Part of the execution of the design found in the templates of
    > every cell is to create design templates in the cells that are
    > created; there is no sepatation of the dance of cell creation into
    > some anthropomorphized dancer; such a cartesian actor is not
    > required, as the blind chemical exigencies patterned in the
    > template are quite simply unconsciously followed in cell creation,
    > from messenger rna to amino acids to proteins all the way up the
    > germ line.

    That the design comes about blindly and unconsciously through mutation and
    natural selection doesn't make it any less of a design. That it's
    incorporated into our cells doesn't change the fact that it's set apart from
    the structures it encodes.

    As long as we assert the existence of a blind design, there will be people
    who assert the existence of an intelligent design. In other words, if the
    discussion is limited to design-type options, then the school of
    "intelligent design" will always draw the less informed. This guarantees
    that the neo-Darwinists will have an uneducated opposition they can hurl
    their invective at. Then, when a genuine alternative comes along, they can
    just lump that in with the creationists. This is the machinary by which the
    neo-Darwinian meme is replicated.

    The following exchange illustrates my point.

    > > Designs are
    > > abstractions of the structures built according to them. Abstractions
    > > are a function of human consciousness. They don't belong in our
    > > cells.
    > >
    > We abstract patterns and impose them on the world, and say that
    > there must have been another patterner, since we can see pattern
    > there. It's not true; it's the sams designer fallacy that leads gullible
    > people to suppose that there must be deities diong these things.


    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 21 2001 - 19:30:18 BST