Re: The Laws of Intelligence Examined
- From: "wf3h" <wf3h@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 20 Mar 2006 19:10:36 -0800
Zoe wrote:
And just to make it clear where I'm heading with all this:
1. I expect that if intelligence can indeed be detected in nature,
that research can then be more pointedly directed towards an
understanding of how things are meant to function, what it takes to
keep the "machinery" running smoothly, how to avoid or delay problems
like poor health, failing functions, deteriorating environments.
Emphasis more on prevention than cure.
except, of course, creationists front load their argument with their
conclusion, making it a circular argument. their assumption is that
intelligence operates outside the realm of natural law. no evolution.
no developmental processes. nothing.
just magic. everything else in nature, they say, needs cause and
effect. except intelligence
and, somehow, this proves that intelligence is scientific.
whatever...
2. An "operator's manual" can be developed for optimum and successful
operation of all aspects of the natural world, based on an
understanding of how intelligence has approached creation and based on
an awareness of the original intent for how the creation should
function.
how intelligence approached creation...
anybody got an 'approach' meter? because if this is science, it should
be measurable and my approach meter musta got busted.
3. Predictions in a fresh direction can be made based on awareness of
purpose and intent.
similarly...anybody got a 'purpose and intent' meter?
anybody know of a creationist who DOESNT mix metaphysics and physics?
.
- References:
- The Laws of Intelligence Examined
- From: Zoe
- The Laws of Intelligence Examined
- Prev by Date: Re: Evolution and Observation Gap
- Next by Date: Re: Archbishop of Canterbury: stop teaching creationism
- Previous by thread: Re: The Laws of Intelligence Examined
- Next by thread: Re: The Laws of Intelligence Examined
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
