Re: Human design and natural "design"

in article de16dt$24l9$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dkomo at dkomo871@xxxxxxxxxxx
wrote on 8/17/05 10:30 PM:

> Tim Tyler wrote:
>> dkomo <dkomo871@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote or quoted:
>>
>>> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>>>
>>>> "dkomo" <dkomo871@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:ddiijq$2ok$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>> Because nature can use massive parallism to explore an immense search
>>> space. It can literally "experiment" on tens of millions of species
>>> simultaneously. And it has tens of millions of years in which to do it.
>>> These significant advantages over what humans have to work with.
>>>
>>> But we can produce a complex design directly with very little trial and
>>> error. Given a design spec for a digital filter, for example, we merely
>>> feed the parameters into a computer, and presto voila there's the
>>> filter. Nature has absolutely no capability to do this.
>>
>>
>> Here you are using terminology which divorces man from nature.
>>
>> I know there's a long tradition of that - going back to Darwin and
>> beyond. However I wish people would stop using such terminology.
>>
>> One of the Darwinain revelations is that man is part of and a
>> product of nature - not something apart from or divorced from it.
>>
>
> I think I answered this in my reply to Guy Hoelzer today (Wednesday).
> Re-reading your post and his, the needle of my pedantry detector has
> started to move toward the high end of the scale.
>
> I'm trying to pinpoint the differences between human intelligent design
> and the biological evolution which consists of random variation and
> selection. If you think this means I'm "using terminology which
> divorces man from nature" then you're being pedantic. If we can't make
> these kinds of distinctions, then let's just declare "All is One" and
> stop wasting our time. And "All is One" is the equivalent of saying
> that, for example, nature can perform analytical and top-down design
> because humans can.
>
> Silly.

Silly??? You have either completely missed the point that Tim and I have
been making, or you have dismissed it entirely without providing any
justification. I will try to make the point again in the context of your
claim here. Humans are as much a part of nature as worms, trees, galaxies,
or anything else you can point to. Humans are hierarchically embedded
within nature, so anything that humans can do can be done by nature.
Perhaps it would be less ambiguous to say that everything that has ever been
done by a human has been done by nature in the very same acts. It is not
that nature has done these things ALSO. Each single act done by man was
also done by nature without repetition. This is why I argued that you were
making a false distinction.

Guy


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Chez Wat: "If DNA is created, so is life"
    ... find me the test tube in nature that does what you say humans are ... you seem to be saying that, since humans can make lightening in the ... No. Non-deliberate nature can produce certain types of DNA and ... intelligent design - that's how. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Genetics as a Language System
    ... So, you claim that cars can easily evolve by evolution, since cars can ... >> nature, ... Humans are different. ... >> baby with a tail. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Flood
    ... with the first covenant between God and Mankind. ... with Nature when a plague affecting humans only would surfice?- Hide ... common among many good intentioned environmentalists. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: Human design and natural "design"
    ... Humans and Nature are hierarchically related and not ... >> design and natural design. ... A plan; a project. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Human design and natural "design"
    ... I don't see how emergence would remove humans or anything else to ... > nature does at the level of biological evolution. ... When you talk about human design, ... that humans have traditionally utilized. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)