Hi Glenn,
GLENN: You are using different senses of "creative". The first is teleological
>and the second isn't. Random mutations are creative in the sense that they
>can create new recipes for genes, but this kind of creating is not
purposeful.
ERIN: pattern emerges doesn't automatically mean it is random
So 3 senses of creative? 1. pattern emerging from going toward a defined goal
(Creationism)2: pattern emerging toward an undefined goal 3.
pattern emerging from random activity
GLENN: The evolutionists guess has the advantage of Occam's Razor. Natural
selection
>explains the outcome without introducing a mysterious designing force which
>would then itself need explaining. It at least pushes off the God question to
>the poor cosmologists. :)
>
ERIN: Platt already went into how Occam Razor is an assumption.
So a guess is still a guess.
I also don't see how random process creating a world
that is so patterned is the "simplest" answer;
regardless of whether the Occam's is true and simpler answer is the best one.
(you should really watch Contact)
Why I said your definition of teological is creative is because
you keep making the goal a designer just so you can argue
teleological = creationism point.
here is an exaggerated analogy; in a discussion of
Buddhist Tao it is legitimate to insert a Judeo-Christian
God because its all the same teleological crap
Funny my answer to the Let's Make a Deal seems more random
so doesn't that make it better then yours.
You must think Monty/contestant is the designer of statistics--
you closet Creationist.
Just kidding,
Erin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:25 BST