Re: from Re: Intelligent Design ?

From: Pim van Meurs <>
Date: Sat Aug 20 2005 - 13:29:10 EDT

janice matchett wrote:

> At 04:56 PM 8/19/2005, David C Campbell wrote:
>> Janice wrote:.......>>>>> /Unlike you, his interpretations of the
>> facts are sifted through a mind that he believes was given to him by
>> a greater mind (God). Or have I misunderstood your position?/<<<<<<
>> David responds: /"Probably; most of the views expressed on the list
>> reflect a belief that God ultimately gave us our minds, by whatever
>> means." /
> ## But Pim had written: "*Intelligent design can in fact be
> explained by a designer of fully natural origin: Mutation.*.."
> How is that different from the *evolutionary naturalism *of Darwin,
> and his stated fears about *its implications*?
> "With me the horrid doubt always arises *whether the convictions of
> man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower
> animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy*. Would any one trust
> in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in
> such a mind?" ~ Charles Darwin

I have no idea where you are going with your 'arguments' I point out
that in this case intelligent design can be explained by mutation. I
assume that you are aware that the evolution of the immune system is
quite well understood. You cut and paste a lot from random sources but I
really have no idea what you are trying to argue. And perhaps my
expectations are too high.

For instance your quote mining comes from a letter by Darwin to Graham,
July 3 1881. These are interesting questions but I would argue that the
value of thought is exemplified by its impact on survival. And I am sure
that Darwin had answers to his own questions.

The chief one is that the existence of so-called natural laws implies
purpose. I cannot see this. Not to mention that many expect that the
several great laws will some day be found to follow inevitably from some
one single law, yet taking the laws as we now know them, and look at the
moon, where the law of gravitation-and no doubt of the conservation of
energy-of the atomic theory, etc. etc., hold good, and I cannot see that
there is then necessarily any purpose. Would there be purpose if the
lowest organisms alone, destitute of consciousness existed in the moon?
But I have had no practice in abstract reasoning, and I may be all
astray. Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far
more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is
not the result of chance.

You asked "So, tell me --- how can you expect me, or anyone else to take
you seriously, or trust in the validity of your thinking processes, if
you "believe" (have faith) that it is a result of *"mutation by a
designer of fully natural origin" *? "

You seem to have forgotten the aspect of natural selection... A common
mistake but an important one. How is accepting a rational God creating
rational beings any different from showing that rational thought is a
selectable feature as it impact survival.

Perhaps I failed to understand 'your' argument, which seems to be mostly
a cut and paste job of random thoughts of others.

Talking about Rush:
Of course, like you, he's entitled to his own personal interpretation of
the facts. Unlike you, his interpretations of the facts are sifted
through a mind that he believes was given to him by a greater mind (God).

Sure, Rush is very much entitled to give his own personal
interpretations of the facts. That he believes that they are sifted
through a mind that he believes was given to him by God however
undermines his own argument, given the often poor end product.
Which leads to an interesting question. If our minds were given to us by
God, how come that they are in many ways so fallible and flawed?
Received on Sat Aug 20 13:31:18 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 20 2005 - 13:31:19 EDT