quote:
"Just like we know that all mammals have hair of some kind, we know that all of Gitt's domain a information systems result from intelligence."
This is actually a pretty interesting statement...there are 2 ways of "knowing" that "all mammals have hair".
1. By definition. We define animals with hair (not just hair-like stuff, but "hair") and which feed their young milk as mammals. We "know" mammals have hair, because we don't put them in the category unless they have hair. Also, if we "define" a class of systems as resulting from intelligence, well, then, yeah, they must result from intelligence! But then, you have to group things by *knowing in advance* that they result from intelligence. If you don't know this in advance, you can't group system X into this category.
I think we can agree this is not a fair resolution to the intelligent design question - we can't simply "define" DNA as being the result of intelligent design!
2. By induction. All "mammals" we have found so far have hair, so the next one probably will too. Note the "probably". Induction by its very nature is "probabilistic". Thus, if the new species X feeds its young with milk and resembles other mammals in other respects, we can be confident (not certain), based on past experience that it also has hair. If we don't see it at first, maybe we should look closer...
But, induction is not certain, and it always remains a possibility that a future example will prove a generalization wrong.
You can't simply say that DNA is the result of intelligence because other similar systems (similar in some ways, not others...) are the result of intelligence. DNA, as a new example, poses a special problem. Are such systems truly always the result of intelligence (as per the induced rule), or is this the case that proves the generalization wrong? There's no *evidence* that intelligence did it, only an induction which could be invalid.
I don't see where the intelligence is. DNA appears to be a naturally occurring code system. But, one can validly say, maybe we need to look harder...
Feel free! The intelligent design proponents can at least make the claim that such-n-such a system strongly resembles systems created by intelligence, thus we should look for such evidence.
That's the valid conclusion from the ID proponents. I disagree with their induction, so I don't feel compelled to look for this evidence. The sad thing is that the ID proponents, who DO agree with the induction, ALSO don't feel compelled to look for this evidence. They place all the certainty of definition and deduction upon their controversial induction.
[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 09-03-2003]
™ Version 4.2