Re: Weak Intelligent Design?
- From: "Peter H.M. Brooks" <peter@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:31:26 +0200
Lance wrote:
That's very hard on puddles!
I don't think transcendental arguments are necessarily teleological,
but I do think teleology has been and always will be present in
biology. After all, a biologist might look at the narwhale and ask "why
did that long tooth evolve" - a form of question that is teleological.
That doesn't mean that his final explanation will be teleological, just
that teleological question drive biology and always have. The puddle
argument amounts to saying, by analogy, that because no valid
evolutionary story can be given for a unicorn therefore no valid story
can be given for a narwhale's eleongated tooth. But the puddle is not
conscious and doesn't ask questions about the universe, and like the
fictional unicorn, is given life and purpose purely by narrative fiat.
You're making it clear that you think that only 'life' and 'purpose' have value in deciding if you want to know something. I disagree, the evolution of continents - continental drift was an important matter to discuss in geology. There isn't any continental drift on the moon. So, if you prefer, rather than puddles, we could wonder what worlds make that possible.
Still, for some reason, you seem only interested in things with a purpose and life. Fair enough - but realise that you are simply taking a general argument that can apply to puddles and continents and considering life - or narwhals.
There is nothing wrong with that. However, in considering it as being the anthropic principle and arguing that consciousness is somehow special to the argument, you're bringing in a whole lot of unnecessary baggage.
Well, you may like the baggage, nothing wrong with that, but, as you can see, it makes a perfectly ordinary wondering become contentious.
I've no difficulty with the perfectly ordinary wondering of how there might be a world different from this that contains consciousness - as you said, this is a common factor in Science Fiction. I don't see any need to be portentous about it though.
.
- References:
- Weak Intelligent Design?
- From: Mark . Wright
- Re: Weak Intelligent Design?
- From: Lance
- Re: Weak Intelligent Design?
- From: Peter H.M. Brooks
- Re: Weak Intelligent Design?
- From: Lance
- Re: Weak Intelligent Design?
- From: Milan
- Re: Weak Intelligent Design?
- From: Lance
- Weak Intelligent Design?
- Prev by Date: Re: Weak Intelligent Design?
- Next by Date: Re: Weak Intelligent Design?
- Previous by thread: Re: Weak Intelligent Design?
- Next by thread: Re: Weak Intelligent Design?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading